■t^l'p 


^m\[ 


:-■  -^'V:.;;.-:  willte:: 


:t{'r 


m 


III 


ii-;;^-n; 


^v  OF  pmcf 


^y(nci^l  su»»\!i^ 


4'9 


THE    LIFE 


OP 


JESUS    OF   NAZAEETH 


A  STUDY 


BY 

RUSH  RHEES 

PROFESSOR  OF  NEW  TESTAIMENT   INTERPRETATION  IN   THE  NEWTON 
THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTION 


With  Map 


NEW    YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1900 


Copyright,  1900, 
By  Charles  Scribner's  Sons. 


John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridge,  U.  S.  A. 


TO 

C.  W.  McC. 

IN   RECOGNITION   OF   WISE    COUNSEL,   GENEROUS    HELP 
AND   LOVING   APPRECIATION 


"  /  would  preach  .  .  .  the  need  to  the  world  of  the  faith 
in  a  Christ,  the  claim  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  the  demand 
for  an  intelligent  faith,  which  indeed  shall  transcend  hut  shall 
not  despise  knowledge,  or  neglect  to  have  a  knowledge  to 
transcend." — John  Patterson  Cotle 


PEEFACE 


The  aim  of  this  book  is  to  help  thoughtful  readers  of 
the  gospels  to  discern  more  clearly  the  features  of  him 
whom  those  writings  inimitably  portray.  It  is  avowedly 
a  study  rather  than  a  story,  and  as  a  companion  to  the 
reading  of  the  gospels  it  seeks  to  answer  some  of  the 
questions  which  are  raised  by  a  sympathetic  considera- 
tion of  those  narratives.  These  answers  are  offered  in 
an  unargumentative  way,  even  where  the  questions  are 
still  in  debate  among  scholars.  This  method  has  been 
adopted  because  technical  discussion  would  be  of  inter- 
est to  but  few  of  those  whom  the  book  hopes  to  serve. 
On  some  of  the  questions  a  non-committal  attitude  is 
taken  in  the  belief  that  for  the  understanding  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  it  is  of  little  importance  which  way  the 
decision  finally  goes.  Less  attention  has  been  given  to 
questions  of  geography  and  archaeology  than  to  those 
which  have  a  more  vital  biographical  significance. 

A  word  concerning  the  point  of  view  adopted.  The 
church  has  inherited  a  rich  treasure  of  doctrine  concern- 
ing its  Lord,  the  result  of  patient  study  and,  frequently, 
of  heated  controversy.  It  is  customary  to  approach  the 
gospels  with  this  interpretation  of  Christ  as  a  premise, 
^nd  such  a  study  has  some  unquestionable  advantages. 


Vlll  PKEFACE 

With  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  however,  the  recog- 
nition of  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus  was  a  conclusion  from 
their  acquaintance  with  him.  The  Man  of  Nazareth 
was  for  them  primarily  a  man,  and  they  so  regarded 
him  until  he  showed  them  that  he  w^as  more.  Their 
knowledge  of  him  progressed  in  the  natural  way  from 
the  human  to  the  divine.  The  gospels,  particularly  the 
first  three,  are  marvels  of  simplicity  and  objectivity. 
Their  authors  clearly  regarded  Jesus  as  the  Man  from 
heaven ;  yet  in  their  thinking  they  were  dominated  by 
the  influence  of  a  personal  Lord  rather  than  by  the  force 
of  an  accepted  doctrine.  It  is  with  no  lack  of  reverence 
for  the  importance  and  truth  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
that  this  book  essays  to  bring  the  Man  Jesus  before  the 
mind  in  the  reading  of  the  gospels.  The  incarnation 
means  that  God  chose  to  reveal  the  divine  through  a 
human  life,  rather  than  through  a  series  of  propositions 
which  formulate  truth  (Heb.  i.  1-4).  The  most  peren- 
nially refreshing  influence  for  Christian  life  and  thought 
is  personal  discipleship  to  that  Eevealer  who  is  able  to- 
day as  of  old  to  exhibit  in  his  humanity  those  qualities 
which  compel  the  recognition  of  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh. 

An  Appendix  is  added  to  furnish  references  to  the 
wide  literature  of  the  subject  for  the  aid  of  those  who 
wish  to  study  it  more  extensively  and  technically ;  also 
to  discuss  some  questions  of  detail  which  could  not  be 
considered  in  the  text.  This  appendix  will  indicate  the 
extent  of  my  indebtedness  to  others.  I  would  acknowl- 
edge special  obligation  to  Professor  Ernest  D.  Burton, 


PREFACE  ix 

Oi  the  University  of  Chicago,  for  generous  help  and 
permission  to  use  material  found  in  his  "  Notes  on  the 
Life  of  Jesus ; "  to  Professor  Shailer  Mathews,  also  of 
Chicago,  for  very  valuable  criticisms ;  to  my  colleague. 
Professor  Charles  Ptufus  Brown,  for  most  serviceable 
assistance ;  and  to  the  editors  of  this  series  for  helpful 
suggestions  and  criticism  during  the  making  of  the  book. 
An  unmeasured  debt  is  due  to  another  who  has  sat  at 
my  side  during  the  writing  of  these  pages,  and  has 
given  constant  inspiration,  most  discerning  criticism, 
and  practical  aid. 

The  Newton  Theological  Institution, 
April,  1900. 


CONTENTS 


PART   I 

PREPARATORY 

I 

THE  HISTORICAL  SITUATION 

Sections  1-19.    Pages  1-20 

Section  1.  The  Roman  estimate  of  Judea.  2,  3.  Herod  the 
Great  and  his  sons.  4.  Roman  procurators  in  Palestine.  5. 
Taxes.  6.  The  army.  7.  Administration  of  justice.  8.  The 
Sadducees.  9,10.  The  Pharisees.  11.  The  Zealots.  12.  The 
Essenes.  13.  The  Devout.  14.  Herodians  and  Samaritans. 
15.  The  synagogue.  16.  Life  under  the  law.  17.  The  Mes- 
sianic hope.  18.  Contemporary  literature.  19.  Language  of 
Palestine. 

II 

SOURCES  OF  OUR  KNOWLEDGE  OE  JESUS 

Sections  20-35.    Pages  21-37 

Section  20.  The  testimony  of  Paul.  21.  Secular  history.  22. 
The  written  gospels.  23.  Characteristics  of  the  first  gospel. 
24.  Of  the  second.  25.  Of  the  third.  26-30.  The  synoptic 
problem.  31-32.  The  Johannine  problem.  34.  The  two  nar- 
rative sources.     35.    Agrapha  and  Apocrypha. 


Xll  CONTENTS 


III 


THE  HAKMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS 
Sections  36-44.    Pages  38-44 

Section  36.  The  value  of  four  gospels.  37.  Tatian's  Diatessa- 
ron.  38.  Agreement  of  the  gospels  concerning  the  chief 
events.  39.  The  principal  problems.  40.  Relation  of  Mark 
and  John.  41,  42.  Matthew  and  Luke.  43.  Doublets.  44. 
The  degree  of  certainty  attainable. 

lY 

THE   CPIRONOLOGY 

Sections  45-57.     Pages  45-56 

Sections  45-48.  The  length  of  Jesus'  public  ministry.  49. 
Date  of  the  first  Passover.  50.  Date  of  the  crucifixion. 
51-5G.    Date  of  the  nativity.     57.    Summary. 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  OF  JESUS 

Sections  58-7L     Pages  57-69 

Section  58.  Apocryphal  stories.  59.  Silence  of  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ment outside  the  gospels.  60-62.  The  miraculous  birth.  63. 
The  childhood  of  Jesus.  64.  Home.  65.  Religion,  Edu- 
cation. 66.  Growth.  67.  Religious  development.  68.  The 
view  from  Nazareth.  69.  The  first  visit  to  Jerusalem.  70-71. 
The  carpenter  of  Nazareth. 

YI 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

Sections  72-84.    Pages  70-81 

Section  72.  The  gospel  picture.  73.  Notice  by  Josephus.  74. 
Characteristics  of  the  prophet.  75-78.  John's  relation  to  the 
Essenes;  the  Pharisees;  the  Zealots;  the  Apocalyptists.  79. 
John  and  the  Prophets.  80-82.  Origin  of  his  baptism.  83. 
His  greatness.     84.    His  limitations  and  self-effacement. 


CONTENTS  Xlll 

YII 

THE  MESSIANIC   CALL 

Sections  85-96.     Pages  82-91 

Sections  85,  86.  John  and  Jesus.  87.  The  baptism  of  Jesus. 
88,  89.  The  Messianic  call.  90.  The  gift  of  the  Spirit. 
91-94.  The  temptation.  95.  Source  of  the  narrative.  96. 
The  issue. 

YIII 

THE  FIRST  DISCIPLES 

Sections  97-105.    Pages  92-97 

Section  97.  John  at  Bethany  beyond  Jordan.  98.  The  deputa- 
tion from  the  priests.  99.  John's  first  testimony.  100.  The 
first  disciples.  101.  The  early  Messianic  confessions.  102. 
The  visit  to  Cana.  103.  The  miracles  as  disclosures  of  the 
character  of  Jesus.  104.  Jesus  and  his  mother.  105.  Re- 
moval to  Capernaum. 

PART  II 

THE    MINISTRY 

I 

GENERAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

Sections  106-112.    Pages  101-105 

Section  106.  The  early  Judean  ministry.  107.  Withdrawal  to 
Galilee;  a  new  beginning.  108.  The  ministry  in  Galilee  a 
unit.  109.  Best  studied  topically.  110.  The  last  journey  to 
Jerusalem.  111.  The  last  week,  112.  The  resurrection  and 
ascension. 


XIV  CONTENTS 

II 

THE  EARLY  JUDEAN  MINISTRY 

Sections  113-124.    Pages  106-114 

Outline  of  events  in  the  Early  Judean  ministry.  Section  113. 
The  opening  ministry  at  Jerusalem.  114,  The  record  incom- 
plete. 115.  The  cleansing  of  the  temple.  116.  Relation  to 
synoptic  account.  117.  Jesus'  reply  to  the  challenge  of  his 
authority.  118.  The  reserve  of  Jesus.  119.  Discourse  with 
Nicodemus.  120.  Measure  of  success  in  Jerusalem.  121. 
The  Baptist's  last  testimony.  122.  The  arrest  of  John.  123. 
The  second  sign  at  Cana.     124.   Summary. 

Ill 

THE    MINISTRY    IN    GALILEE  — ITS    AIM    AND   METHOD 

Sections  125-149.    Pages  115-137 

Outline  of  events  in  the  Galilean  ministry.  Section  125.  Gen- 
eral view.  126,  127.  Development  of  popular  enthusiasm. 
128.  Pharisaic  opposition.  129,  130.  Jesus  and  the  Messianic 
hope.  131.  Injunctions  of  silence.  132-135.  Jesus'  twofold 
aim  in  Galilee.  136,  137.  Character  of  the  teaching  of  this 
period:  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  138.  The  parables.  139. 
The  instructions  for  the  mission  of  the  twelve.  140.  Jesus' 
tone  of  authority.  141.  Plis  mighty  works.  142-144.  Demoniac 
possession.  145.  Jesus'  personal  influence.  146.  The  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand.  147,  148.  Revulsion  of  popular  feeling. 
149.   Results  of  the  work  in  Galilee. 

IV 

THE    MINISTRY  IN    GALILEE  — THE    NEW  LESSON 

Sections  150-165.    Pages  138-152 

Section  150.  The  changed  ministry.  151.  The  question  of 
tradition.  152.  Further  pharisaic  opposition.  153.  Jesus  in 
Phoenicia.     154.    Confirmation    of    the    disciples'   faith.     155. 


CONTENTS  XV 

The  question  at  Csesarea  Philippi.  156.  The  corner-stone  of 
the  Church.  157-159.  The  new  lesson.  160.  The  transfigu- 
ration. 161.  Cure  of  the  epileptic  boy.  162.  The  feast  of 
Tabernacles.  163.  Story  of  Jesus  and  the  adulteress.  164. 
The  new  note  in  Jesus'  teaching.  165.  Summary  of  the 
Galilean  ministry. 


THE  JOTJRNEY  THROUGH  PEREA  TO  JERUSALEM 

Sections  166-176.    Pages  153-165 

Outline  of  events.  Section  166.  The  Perean  ministry.  167. 
Account  in  John.  168,  169.  Account  in  Luke.  170.  The 
mission  of  the  seventy.  171.  The  feast  of  Dedication.  172. 
Withdrawal  beyond  Jordan.  173.  The  raising  of  Lazarus. 
174.   Ephraim  and  Jericho.     175,176.    Summary. 

YI 

THE  FINAL  CONTROVERSIES  IN  JERUSALEM 
Sections  177-188.    Pages  166-180 

Outline  of  events  in  the  last  week  of  Jesus'  life.  Section  177. 
The  cross  in  apostolic  preaching.  178.  The  anointing  in 
Bethany.  179.  The  Messianic  entry.  180.  The  barren  fig- 
tree.  181.  The  Monday  of  Passion  week.  182-186.  The 
controversies  of  Tuesday.  187.  Judas.  188.  Wednesday,  the 
day  of  seclusion. 

VII 

THE  LAST  SUPPER 

Sections  189-195.    Pages  181-187 

Section  189.  Preparations.  190,191.  Date  of  the  supper.  192. 
The  lesson  of  humility.  193.  The  new  covenant.  194.  The 
supper  and  the  Passover.  195.  Farewell  words  of  admonition 
and  comfort ;  the  intercessory  prayer. 


XVI  CONTENTS 

VIII 

THE  SHADOW  OF  DEATH 

Sections  196-208.    Pages  188-200 

Sections  19G,  197.  Gethsemane.  198.  The  betrayal.  199.  The 
trial.  200.  Peter's  denials.  201,  The  rejection  of  Jesus. 
202.  The  greatness  of  Jesus.  203,  204.  The  crucifixion.  206. 
The  words  from  the  cross.  206.  The  death  of  Jesus.  207. 
The  burial.     208.    The  Sabbath  rest. 

IX 

THE  KESURRECTION 

Sections  209-222.    Pages  201-216 

Section  209.  The  primary  Christian  fact,  210.  The  incredulity 
of  the  disciples.  211-216,  The  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord. 
217-220,  Efforts  to  explain  the  belief  in  the  resurrection.  221. 
The  ascension.     222.    The  new  faith  of  the  disciples. 

PART  III 

THE    MINISTER 

I 

THE  FRIEND  OF  MEN 

Sections  223-229.    Pages  219-225 

Section  223.  The  contrast  between  Jesus'  attitude  and  John's 
towards  common  social  life.  224.  Contrast  with  the  scribes. 
225,  226.  His  interest  in  simple  manhood.  227,  Regard  for 
human  need.     228,  229.    Sensitiveness  to  human  sympathy, 

II 

THE  TEACHER  WITH  AUTHORITY 

Sections  230-241.     Pages  226-237 

Section  230.  Contrast  between  Jesus  and  the  scribes.  231.  His 
appeal  to  the  conscience.     232,  233.    His  attitude  to  the  Old 


CONTENTS  xvii 

Testament.  234.  His  teaching  occasional.  235.  The  patience 
of  his  method.  236.  His  use  of  illustration.  237.  Parable. 
238.  Irony  and  hyperbole.  239.  Object  lessons.  240.  Jesus' 
intellectual  superiority.  241.  His  chief  theme,  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

Ill 

JESUS'  KNOWLEDGE   OF  TRUTH 

Sections  242-251.    Pages  238-248 

Sections  242,  243.  Jesus'  supernatural  knowledge.  244.  His 
predictions  of  his  death.  245.  Of  his  resurrection.  246.  His 
apocalyptic  predictions.  247,  248.  Limitation  of  his  knowledge. 
249,  250.  Jesus  and  demoniac  possession.  251.  His  certainty 
of  his  own  mission. 

IV 

JESUS'  CONCEPTION  OF  HIMSELF 

Sections  252-275.    Pages  249-269 

Section  252.  Jesus'  confidence  in  his  calling.  253.  His  inde- 
pendence in  teaching.  254.  His  self-assertions  in  response  to 
pharisaic  criticism.  255.  His  desire  to  beget  faith  in  himself. 
256,257.  His  extraordinary  personal  claim.  258.  His  accept- 
ance of  Messianic  titles.  259-266.  The  Son  of  Man.  267-269. 
The  Son  of  God.  270,  271.  His  consciousness  of  oneness  with 
God.  272.  His  confession  of  dependence;  his  habit  of  prayer. 
273.   No  confession  of  sin.    274,  275.    The  Word  made  flesh. 

Appendix 273-308 

Index  of  Names  and  Subjects 311-314 

Index  of  Biblical  References 315-320 

Map  of  Palestine Frontispiece 


PART  I 
PREPARATORY 


THE  HISTOEICAL  SITUATION 

1.  When  Tacitus,  the  Roman  historian,  records  the 
attempt  of  Nero  to  charge  the  Christians  with  tlie 
burning  of  Rome,  he  has  patience  for  no  more  than 
the  cursory  remark  that  the  sect  originated  with  a  Jew 
who  had  been  put  to  death  in  Judea  during  the  reign 
of  Tiberius.  This  province  was  small  and  despised, 
and  Tacitus  could  account  for  the  influence  of  the 
sect  which  sprang  thence  only  by  the  fact  that  all  that 
was  infamous  and  abominable  flowed  into  Rome.  The 
Roman's  scornful  judgment  failed  to  grasp  the  nature 
and  power  of  the  movement  whose  unpopularity  invited 
Nero's  lying  accusation,  yet  it  emphasizes  the  signifi- 
cance of  him  who  did  "  not  strive,  nor  cry,  nor  cause 
his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street,"  whose  influence, 
nevertheless,  was  working  as  leaven  throughout  the 
empire. 

2.  Palestine  was  not  under  immediate  Roman  rule 
when  Jesus  was  born.  Herod  the  Great  was  drawingr 
near  the  close  of  the  long  reign  during  which,  owing 
to  his  skill  in  securing  Roman  favor,  he  had  tyrannized 
over  his  unwilling  people.  His  claim  was  that  of  an 
adventurer  who  had  power  to  succeed,  even  as  his 
method  had  been  that  of  a  suspicious  tj^rant,  who 
murdered  right  and  left,  lest  one  of  the  many  with 
better  right  than  he  should  rise  to  dispute  with  him 


4  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

his  throne.  When  Herod  died,  his  kingdom  was 
divided  into  three  parts,  and  Rome  asserted  a  fuller 
sovereignty,  allowing  none  of  liis  sons  to  take  his 
royal  title.  Herod's  successors  ruled  with  a  measure 
of  independence,  however,  and  followed  many  of  their 
father's  ways,  though  none  of  them  had  his  ability. 
The  best  of  them  was  Philip,  who  had  the  territory 
farthest  from  Jerusalem,  and  least  related  to  Jev/ish 
life.  He  ruled  over  Iturea  and  Trachonitis,  the  coun- 
try to  the  north  and  east  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  having 
his  capital  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  a  city  built  and  named 
by  him  on  the  site  of  an  older  town  near  the  sources 
of  the  Jordan.  He  also  rebuilt  the  city  of  Bethsaida, 
at  the  point  where  tjie  Jordan  flows  into  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  calling  it  Julias,  after  the  daughter  of  Augus- 
tus. Philip  enters  the  story  of  the  life  of  Jesus  only 
as  the  ruler  of  these  towns  and  the  intervening  region, 
and  as  husband  of  Salome,  the  daughter  of  Herodias. 
Living  far  from  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  people,  he 
abandoned  even  the  show  of  Judaism  which  character- 
ized his  father,  and  lived  as  a  frank  heathen  in  his 
heathen  capital. 

3.  The  other  two  who  inherited  Herod's  dominion 
were  brothers,  Archelaus  and  Antipas,  sons  of  Mal- 
thace,  one  of  Herod's  many  wives.  Archelaus  had  been 
designated  king  by  Herod,  with  Judea,  Samaria,  and 
Idumea  as  his  kingdom  ;  but  the  emperor  allowed  him 
only  tlie  territory,  with  the  title  ethnarch.  Antipas 
was  named  a  tetrarch  by  Herod,  and  his  territory  was 
Galilee  and  the  land  east  of  the  Jordan  to  the  south- 
ward of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  called  Perea.  Antipas  was 
the  Herod  under  whose  sway  Jesus  lived  in  Galilee,  and 
who  executed  John  the  Baptist.    He  was  a  man  of  pas- 


THE   ROMAN  PROCURATOKS  5 

sionate  temper,  with  the  pride  and  love  of  luxuiy  of  his 
father.  Having  Jews  to  govern,  he  held,  as  his  father 
had  done,  to  a  show  of  Judaism,  though  at  heart  he  was 
as  much  of  a  pagan  as  Philip.  He,  too,  loved  building, 
and  Tiberias  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee  was  built  by  him 
for  his  capital.  His  unscrupulous  tjTanny  and  his 
gross  disregard  of  common  righteousness  appear  in 
his  relations  with  John  the  Baptist  and  Avith  Herodias, 
his  paramour.  Jesus  described  him  well  as  "  that  fox  " 
(Luke  xiii.  32),  for  he  was  sly,  and  worked  often  by 
indirection.  While  his  father  had  energy  and  ability 
vv^hich  command  a  sort  of  admiration,  Antipas  was 
not  only  bad  but  weak. 

4.  Both  Philip  and  Antipas  reigned  until  after  the 
death  of  Jesus,  Philip  dying  in  A.  D.  34,  and  Antipas 
being  deposed  several  years  later,  probably  in  39. 
Archelaus  had  a  much  shorter  rule,  for  he  was  de- 
posed in  A.  D.  6,  having  been  accused  by  the  Jews 
of  unbearable  barbarity  and  tyranny,  —  a  charge  in 
which  Antipas  and  Philip  joined.  The  territory  of 
Archelaus  v/as  then  made  an  imperial  province  of  the 
second  grade,  ruled  by  a  procurator  appointed  from 
among  the  Roman  knights.  In  provinces  under  an 
imperial  legate  (propraetor)  the  procurator  was  an  offi- 
cer for  the  administration  of  the  revenues;  in  prov- 
inces of  the  rank  of  Judea  he  was,  however,  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  emperor  in  all  the  prerogatives  of 
government,  having  command  of  the  army,  and  being 
the  final  resort  in  legal  procedure,  as  well  as  supervis- 
ing the  collection  of  the  customs  and  taxes.  Very  little 
is  known  of  the  procurators  appointed  after  the  deposi- 
tion of  Archelaus,  until  Tiberius  sent  Pontius  Pilate  in 
A.  D.  26.     He  held  office  until  he  was  deposed  in  36. 


6  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Joseplius  gives  several  examples  of  his  wanton  disre- 
gard of  Jewish  prejudice,  and  of  his  extreme  cruelty. 
His  conduct  at  the  trial  of  Jesus  was  remarkably  gentle 
and  judicial  in  comparison  with  other  acts  recorded  of 
his  government ;  yet  the  fear  of  trial  at  Rome,  wliich 
finally  induced  him  to  give  Jesus  over  to  be  cruci- 
fied, was  thoroughly  characteristic  ;  in  fact,  his  down- 
fall resulted  from  a  complaint  lodged  against  him  by 
certain  Samaritans  whom  he  had  cruelly  punished  for 
a  Messianic  uprising. 

5.  There  were  two  sorts  of  Roman  taxes  in  Judea  : 
direct,  which  were  collected  by  salaried  officials ;  and 
customs,  which  were  farmed  out  to  the  highest  bidder. 
The  direct  taxes  consisted  of  a  land  tax  and  a  poll  tax, 
in  the  collection  of  which  the  procurator  made  use 
of  the  local  Jewish  courts  ;  the  customs  consisted 
of  various  duties  assessed  on  exports,  and  they  were 
gathered  by  representatives  of  men  who  had  bought 
the  right  to  collect  these  dues.  The  chiefs  as  well  as 
their  underlings  are  called  publicans  in  our  New 
Testament,  although  the  name  strictly  applies  only  to 
the  chiefs.  These  tax-gatherers,  small  and  great,  were 
everywhere  despised  and  execrated,  because,  in  addi- 
tion to  their  subserviency  to  a  hated  government,  they 
had  a  reputation,  usually  deserved,  for  all  sorts  of 
extortion.  Because  of  this  evil  repute  they  were  com- 
monly drawn  from  the  unscrupulous  among  the  people, 
so  that  the  frequent  coupling  of  publicans  and  sinners 
in  the  gospels  probably  rested  on  fact  as  much  as  on 
prejudice. 

6.  In  Samaria  and  Judea  soldiers  were  under  the 
command  of  the  procurator ;  they  took  orders  from  the 
tetrarch,  in  Galilee  and  Perea.     The  garrison  of  Jeru- 


THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE  7 

salem  consisted  of  one  Roman  cohort  —  from  five  to 
six  hundred  men  —  which  was  reinforced  at  the  time 
of  the  principal  feasts.  These  and  the  other  forces 
at  the  disposal  of  the  procurator  were  probably  re- 
cruited from  the  country  itself,  largely  from  among  the 
Samaritans,  The  centurion  of  Capernaum  (Matt.  viii. 
5 ;  Luke  vii.  2-5)  was  an  officer  in  the  army  of  Antipas, 
who,  however,  doubtless  organized  his  army  on  the 
Roman  pattern,  with  officers  v/ho  had  had  their  train- 
ing with  the  imperial  forces. 

7.  The  administration  of  justice  in  Samaria  and 
Judea  was  theoretically  in  the  hands  of  the  procu- 
rator; practically,  however,  it  was  left  with  the  Jew- 
ish courts,  either  the  local  councils  or  the  great 
sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem.  This  last  body  consisted  of 
seventy-one  '*  elders."  Its  president  was  the  high- 
priest,  and  its  members  were  drawn  in  large  degree 
from  the  most  prominent  rej)resentatives  of  the  priestly 
aristocracy.  The  scribes,  however,  had  a  controlling 
influence  because  of  the  reverence  in  which  the  mul- 
titude held  them.  The  sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem  had 
jurisdiction  only  within  the  province  of  Judea,  w^here 
it  tried  all  kinds  of  offences ;  its  judgment  was  final, 
except  in  capital  cases,  when  it  had  to  yield  to  the 
procurator,  who  alone  could  sentence  to  death.  It 
had  great  influence  also  in  Galilee,  and  among 
Jews  everyw^here,  but  this  vv^as  due  to  the  regard 
all  Jews  had  for  the  holy  city.  It  was,  in  fact,  a 
sort  of  Jewish  senate,  which  took  cognizance  of 
everything  that  seemed  to  affect  the  Jewish  inter- 
ests. In  Galilee  and  Perea,  Antipas  held  in  his  hands 
the  judicial  as  well  as  the  military  and  financial 
administration. 


8  THE  LIFE  OE  JESUS 

8.  To  the  majority  of  the  priests  religion  had  be- 
come chiefly  a  form.  They  represented  the  worldly 
party  among  the  Jews.  Since  the  days  of  the  priest- 
princes  who  ruled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  return 
from  the  exile,  they  had  constituted  the  Jewish 
aristocracy,  and  held  most  of  the  wealth  of  the 
people.  It  was  to  their  interest  to  maintain  the 
ritual  and  the  traditional  customs,  and  they  were 
proud  of  their  Jewish  heritage;  of  genuine  interest 
in  religion,  however,  they  had  little.  This  secular 
priestly  party  was  called  the  Sadducees,  probably  from 
Zadok,  the  high-priest  in  Solomon's  time.  What  the- 
ology the  Sadducees  had  was  for  the  most  part  reac- 
tionary and  negative.  They  were  opposed  to  the 
more  earnest  spirit  and  new  thought  of  the  scribes, 
and  naturally  produced  some  champions  who  argued 
for  their  theological  position;  but  the  mass  of  them 
cared  for  other  things. 

9.  The  leaders  of  the  popular  thought,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  chiefly  noted  for  their  religious  zeal  and 
theological  acumen.  They  represented  the  outgrowth 
of  that  spirit  which  in  the  Maccabean  time  had  risked 
all  to  defend  the  sanctity  of  the  temple  and  the  right 
of  God's  people  to  worship  him  according  to  his  law. 
They  Avere  known  as  Pharisees,  because,  as  the  name 
("  separated  ")  indicates,  they  insisted  on  the  separation 
of  the  people  of  God  from  all  the  defilements  and  snares 
of  the  heathen  life  round  about  them.  The  Pharisees 
constituted  a  fraternity  devoted  to  the  scrupulous 
observance  of  law  and  tradition  in  all  the  concerns  of 
daily  life.  They  were  specialists  in  religion,  and  were 
the  ideal  representatives  of  Judaism.  Their  distin- 
guishing  characteristic   was   reverence   for  the   lawj 


.,    THE  PHARISEES  9 

their  religion  was  the  religion  of  a  book.  By  punc- 
tilious obedience  of  the  law  man  might  hope  to  gain  a 
record  of  merit  Avhicli  should  stand  to  his  credit  and 
secure  his  reward  when  God  should  finally  judge  the 
world.  Because  life  furnished  manj^  situations  not 
dealt  with  in  the  written  law,  there  was  need  of  its 
authoritative  interpretation,  in  order  that  ignorance 
might  not  cause  a  man  to  transgress.  These  interpre- 
tations constituted  an  oral  law  which  practically  super- 
seded the  written  code,  and  they  were  handed  down 
from  generation  to  generation  as  "  the  traditions  of  the 
fathers."  The  existence  of  this  oral  law  made  necessary 
a  company  of  scribes  and  lawyers  whose  business  it  was 
to  know  the  traditions  and  transmit  them  to  their  pupils. 
These  scribes  were  the  teachers  of  Israel,  the  leaders  of 
the  Pharisees,  and  the  most  highly  revered  class  in  the 
community.  Pharisaism  at  its  beginning  was  intensely 
earnest,  but  in  the  time  of  Jesus  the  earnest  spirit  had 
died  out  in  zealous  formalism.  This  was  the  inevitable 
result  of  their  virtual  substitution  of  the  written  law 
for  the  living  God.  Their  excessive  reverence  had 
banished  God  from  practical  relation  to  the  daily  life. 
They  held  that  he  had  declared  his  will  once  for  all 
in  the  law.  His  name  was  scrupulously  revered,  his 
worship  was  cultivated  with  minutest  care,  his  judg- 
ment was  anticipated  with  dread ;  but  he  himself,  like 
an  Oriental  monarch,  was  kept  far  from  common  life 
in  an  isolation  suitable  to  his  awful  holiness.  By  a 
natural  consequence  conscience  gave  place  to  scrupu- 
lous regard  for  tradition  in  the  religion  of  the  scribes. 
The  chief  question  with  them  was  not,  Is  this  right  ? 
but.  What  say  the  elders  ?  The  soul's  sensitiveness  of 
response  to  God's  will  and  God's  truth  was  lost  in  a 


10  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

maze  of  traditions  which  awoke  no  spontaneous  Amen 
in  the  moral  nature,  consequently  there  was  frequent 
substitution  of  reputation  for  character.  The  Pharisees 
could  make  void  the  command,  Honor  thy  father,  by  an 
ingenious  application  of  the  principle  of  dedication  of 
property  to  God  (Mark  vii.  8-13),  and  thus  under  the 
guise  of  scrupulous  regard  for  law  discovered  ways 
for  legal  disregard  of  law.  Their  theory  of  religion 
gave  abundant  room  for  a  piety  v/hicli  made  broad  its 
phylacteries  and  lengthened  its  prayers,  while  neglect- 
ing judgment,  mercy,  and  the  love  of  God. 

10.  Yet  the  earnest  and  true  development  in  Jewish 
thinking  was  found  among  the  Pharisees.  The  early 
hope  of  Israel  was  almost  exclusively  national.  In  the 
later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  connection  with 
an  enlarged  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  individual, 
the  doctrine  of  a  personal  resurrection  to  share  the 
blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  began  to  appear. 
It  had  its  clear  development  and  definite  adoption  as 
part  of  the  faith  of  Judaism,  however,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Pharisees.  Along  with  this  increased 
emphasis  on  the  worth  of  the  individual  came  a  large 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  angels  and  spirits. 
Towards  both  of  these  doctrines  the  Sadducees  took 
a  reactionary  position.  Politically  the  Pharisees  were 
theocratic  in  theory,  but  opportunists  in  practice, 
accommodating  themselves  to  the  existing  state  of 
things  so  long  as  the  de  facto  government  did  not 
interfere  with  the  religious  life  of  the  people.  They 
looked  for  a  kingdom  in  which  God  should  be  evi- 
dently the  king  of  his  people;  but  they  believed 
that  his  sovereignty  was  to  be  realized  through 
the  law,  hence  their  sole  interest  was  in  the  obedi- 


ZEALOTS  AND  ESSENES  11 

ence  of  God's  people  to  that  law  as  interpreted  by  the 
traditions. 

11.  The  theocratic  spirit  was  more  aggressive  in  a 
party  which  originated  in  the  later  years  of  Herod  the 
Great,  and  found  a  reckless  leader  in  Judas  of  Galilee, 
who  started  a  revolt  when  the  governor  of  Syria  under- 
took to  make  a  census  of  the  Jews  after  the  deposition 
of  Archelaus.  This  party  bore  the  name  Cananeans  or 
Zealots.  They  regarded  with  passionate  resentment 
the  subjection  of  God's  people  to  a  foreign  power,  and 
waited  eagerly  for  an  opportune  time  to  take  the 
sword  and  set  up  the  kingdom  of  God ;  it  was  with 
them  that  the  final  war  against  Rome  began.  They 
were  found  in  largest  numbers  in  Galilee,  where  the 
scholasticism  of  the  scribes  was  not  so  dominating  an 
influence  as  in  Judea.  Dr.  Edersheim  has  called  them 
the  nationalist  party.  In  matters  belonging  strictly  to 
the  religious  life  they  followed  the  Pharisees,  only  hold- 
ing a  more  material  conception  of  the  hope  of  Israel. 

12.  Another  development  in  Jewish  religious  life 
carried  separatist  doctrines  to  the  extreme.  Its  rep- 
resentatives were  called  Essenes,  though  what  the 
significance  of  the  name  was  is  no  longer  clear.  Al- 
though they  were  allied  with  the  Pharisees  in  doc- 
trine, they  show  in  some  particulars  the  influence  of 
Hellenistic  Judaism.  This  is  suggested  not  only  by 
the  attention  which  Philo  and  Josephus  give  to  them, 
but  also  by  certain  of  their  views,  which  were  very  like 
the  doctrines  of  the  Pythagoreans.  They  carried  the 
pharisaic  demand  for  separateness  to  the  extreme  of 
asceticism.  While  they  were  found  in  nearly  every 
town  in  Palestine,  some  of  them  even  practising  mar- 
riage,  the   largest  group   of    them   lived  a   celibate, 


12  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

monastic  life  near  the  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea.  This 
community  was  recruited  by  the  initiation  of  converts, 
who  only  after  a  novitiate  of  three  years  were  admitted 
to  full  membership  in  the  order.  They  were  character- 
ized by  an  extreme  scrupulousness  concerning  cere- 
monial purity,  their  meals  were  regarded  as  sacrifices, 
and  were  prepared  by  members  of  the  order,  who  were 
looked  upon  as  priests,  nor  were  any  allowed  to  par- 
take of  the  food  until  they  had  first  bathed  them- 
selves. Their  regular  garments  were  all  white,  and 
were  regarded  as  vestments  for  use  at  the  sacrificial 
meals,  —  other  clothing  being  assumed  as  they  went 
out  to  their  work.  They  were  industrious  agricultur- 
ists, their  life  was  communistic,  and  they  were  re- 
nowned for  their  uprightness.  They  revered  Moses 
as  highly  as  did  the  scribes ;  yet  they  were  opposed 
to  animal  sacrifices,  and,  although  they  sent  gifts  to 
the  temple,  were  apparently  excluded  from  its  worship. 
Their  kinship  with  the  Pji^hagoreans  appears  in  that 
they  addressed  an  invocation  to  the  sun  at  its  rising, 
and  conducted  all  their  natural  functions  with  scrupu- 
lous modesty,  "•  that  they  might  not  offend  the  bright- 
ness of  God "  (Jos.  Wars,  ii.  8.  9).  Their  rejection 
of  bloody  sacrifices,  and  their  view  that  the  soul  is 
imprisoned  in  the  body  and  at  death  is  freed  for  a 
better  life,  besides  many  features  of  their  life  that 
are  genuinely  Jewish,  such  as  their  regard  for  cere- 
monial purity,  also  show  similarity  to  the  Pythagoreans. 
It  has  always  been  a  matter  of  perplexity  that  these 
ascetics  find  no  mention  in  the  New  Testament.  They 
seem  to  have  lived  a  life  too  much  apart,  and  to  have 
had  little  sympathy  with  the  ideals  of  Jesus,  or  even 
of  John  the  Baptist. 


THE   COMMON  PEOPLE  13 

13.  The  common  people  followed  the  lead  of  the 
Pharisees,  though  afar  off.  They  accepted  the  teach- 
ing concerning  tradition,  as  well  as  that  concerning  the 
resurrection,  conforming  their  lives  to  the  prescrip- 
tions of  the  scribes  more  or  less  strictly,  according  as 
they  were  more  or  less  ruled  by  religious  considera- 
tions. It  was  in  consequence  of  their  hold  on  the 
people  that  the  scribes  in  the  sanhedrin  were  able 
often  to  dictate  a  policy  to  the  Sadducean  majority. 
Jesus  voiced  the  popular  opinion  when  he  said  that 
"the  scribes  sit  in  Moses'  seat"  (Matt,  xxiii.  2). 
Their  leaders  despised  "  this  multitude  which  knoweth 
not  the  law  "  (John  vii.  49),  yet  delighted  to  legislate 
for  them,  binding  heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to  be 
borne.  Many  of  the  people  were  doubtless  too  intent 
on  work  and  gain  to  be  very  regardfid  of  the  minutice 
of  conduct  as  ordained  by  the  scribes;  many  more 
were  too  simple-minded  to  follow  the  theories  of  the 
rabbis  concerning  the  aloofness  of  God  from  the  life  of 
men.  These  last  reverenced  the  scribes,  followed  their 
directions,  in  the  main,  for  the  conduct  of  life,  yet  lived 
in  fellowship  with  God  as  their  fathers  had,  trusting 
in  his  faithfulness,  and  hoping  in  his  mercy.  They 
are  represented  in  the  New  Testament  by  such  as 
Simeon  and  Anna,  Zachariah  and  Elizabeth,  Jose^Dh 
and  Mary,  and  the  majority  of  those  who  heard  and 
heeded  John's  call  to  repentance.  They  were  Israel's 
remnant  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion,  and  con- 
stituted what  there  was  of  good  soil  among  the 
people  for  the  reception  of  the  seed  sown  by  John's 
successor.  They  had  no  name,  for  they  did  not  con- 
stitute a  party;  for  convenience  they  may  be  called 
the  Devout. 


14  THE  LIFE   OF   JESUS 

14.  Two  other  classes  among  the  people  are  men- 
tioned in  the  gospels,  —  the  Herodians  and  the  Sa- 
maritans. The  Herodians  do  not  appear  outside  the 
New  Testament,  and  seem  to  have  been  hardly  more 
than  a  group  of  men  in  whom  the  secular  spirit  was 
dominant,  who  thought  it  best  for  their  interests  and 
for  the  people's  to  champion  the  claims  of  the  Hero- 
dian  family.  They  were  probably  more  akin  to  the 
Pharisees  than  to  the  Sadducees,  for  the  latter  were 
hostile  to  the  Herodian  claims,  from  the  first;  yet  in 
spirit  they  seem  more  like  to  the  worldly  aristocracy 
than  to  the  pious  scribes.  The  Samaritans  lived  in 
the  land,  a  people  despising  and  despised.  Their  terri- 
tory separated  Galilee  from  Judea,  and  they  were  a 
constant  source  of  irritation  to  the  Jews.  The  hatred 
was  inherited  from  the  days  of  Ezra,  when  the  zealous 
Jews  refused  to  allow  any  intercourse  with  the  inhab- 
itants of  Samaria.  These  Samaritans  were  spurned  as 
of  impure  blood  and  mixed  religion  (II.  Kings  xvii. 
24-41).  The  severe  attitude  adopted  towards  them 
by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  led  to  the  building  of  a  temple 
on  Mount  Gerizim,  and  the  establishment  of  a  worship 
which  sought  to  rival  that  of  Jerusalem  in  all  particu- 
lars. Very  little  is  known  of  the  tenets  of  the  Samar- 
itans in  the  time  of  Jesus  beyond  their  belief  that 
Gerizim  was  the  place  which,  according  to  the  law,  God 
chose  for  his  temple,  and  that  a  Messiah  should  come 
to  settle  all  questions  of  dispute  (John  iv.  25). 

15.  Although  the  religious  life  of  the  Jews  centred 
ideally  in  the  temple,  it  found  its  practical  expression 
in  the  synagogue.  This  in  itself  is  evidence  of  the 
relative  influence  of  priests  and  scribes.  There  was 
no  confessed  rivalry.     The  Pharisee  was  most  insist- 


THE   SYNAGOGUE  15 

ent  on  the  sanctity  of  the  temple  and  the  importance 
of  its  ritual.  Yet  with  the  growing  sense  of  the 
religious  significance  of  the  individual  as  distinct 
from  the  nation,  there  arose  of  necessity  a  practical 
need  for  a  system  of  worship  possible  for  the  great 
majority  of  the  people,  who  could  at  best  visit  Jeru- 
salem but  once  or  twice  a  year.  The  synagogue  seems 
to  have  been  a  development  of  the  exile,  when  there 
was  no  temple  and  no  sacrifice.  It  was  the  character- 
istic institution  of  Judaism  as  a  religion  of  the  law, 
furnishing  in  every  place  opportunity  for  prayer  and 
study.  The  elders  of  each  community  seem  ordinarily 
to  have  been  in  control  of  its  synagogue,  and  to  have 
had  authority  to  exclude  from  its  fellowship  persons 
who  had  come  under  the  ban.  In  addition  to  these 
ofiicials  there  was  a  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  who  had 
the  direction  of  all  that  concerned  the  worship;  a 
chazzan^  or  minister,  who  had  the  care  of  the  sacred 
books,  administered  discipline,  and  instructed  the 
children  in  reading  the  scripture ;  and  two  or  more 
receivers  of  alms.  The  Sabbath  services  consisted  of 
prayers,  and  reading  of  the  scriptures  —  both  law  and 
prophets,  —  and  an  address  or  sermon.  It  was  in  the 
sermon  that  the  people  learned  to  know  the  "  tradi- 
tions of  the  elders,"  whether  as  applications  of  the  law 
to  the  daily  life,  or  as  legendary  embellishments  of 
Hebrew  history  and  prophecy.  The  preacher  might 
be  any  one  whom  the  ruler  of  the  synagague  recognized 
as  worthy  to  address  the  congregation. 

16.  The  religious  life  which  centred  in  the  syna- 
gogue found  daily  expression  in  the  observance  of  the 
law  and  the  traditions.  In  the  measure  of  its  control 
by  the  scribes  it  was  concerned  chiefly  with  the  Sab- 


16  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

bath,  with  the  various  ablutions  needful  to  the  main- 
tenance of  ceremonial  purity,  with  the  distinctions 
between  clean  and  unclean  food,  with  the  times  and 
ways  of  fasting,  and  with  the  wearing  of  fringes  and 
phylacteries.  These  lifeless  ceremonies  seem  to  our 
day  wearisome  and  petty  in  the  extreme.  It  is  prob- 
able, however,  that  the  growth  of  the  various  tradi- 
tions had  been  so  gradual  that,  as  has  been  aptly  said, 
the  whole  usage  seemed  no  more  unreasonable  to  the 
Jews  than  the  etiquette  of  polite  society  does  to  its 
devotees.  The  evil  was  not  so  much  in  the  minute- 
ness of  the  regulations  as  in  the  external  and  super- 
ficial notion  of  religion  which  they  induced. 

17.  Optimism  was  the  mood  of  Israel's  prophets 
from  the  earliest  times.  Every  generation  looked  for 
the  dawning  of  a  day  which  should  banish  all  ill  and 
realize  the  dreams  inspired  by  the  covenant  in  which 
God  had  chosen  Israel  for  his  own.  In  proportion 
as  the  rabbinic  formalism  held  control  of  the  hearts 
of  the  people,  the  Messianic  hope  lost  its  warmth 
and  vigor.  Yet  the  scribes  did  not  abandon  the 
prophetic  optimism ;  they  held  to  the  letter  of  the 
hope,  but  as  its  fulfilment  was  for  them  dependent 
on  perfect  obedience  to  the  law,  oral  and  written, 
their  interest  was  diverted  to  the  traditions,  and 
their  strength  was  given  to  legal  disputations.  Of 
the  rest  of  the  people,  the  Sadducees  naturally  gave 
little  thought  to  the  promise  of  future  deliverance, 
they  were  too  absorbed  with  regard  for  present  con- 
cerns. Nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  Essenes, 
with  all  their  reputed  knowledge  of  the  future,  cher- 
ished the  hope  of  a  Messiah.  The  other  elements 
among  the  people  who  owned  the  general  leadership 


APOCALYSES  17 

of  the  scribes  looked  eagerly  for  the  coming  time 
when  God  should  bring  to  pass  what  he  had  promised 
tlirough  the  prophets.  While  some  expected  God 
himself  to  come  in  judgment,  and  gave  no  thought  to 
an  Anointed  one  who  should  represent  the  Most  High 
to  the  people,  the  majority  looked  for  a  Son  of  David 
to  sit  upon  his  father's  throne.  Even  so,  however, 
there  were  wide  chfferences  in  the  nature  of  the  hope 
which  was  set  on  the  coming  of  this  Son  of  David. 
The  Zealots  were  looking  for  a  victory,  which  should 
set  Israel  on  high  over  all  his  foes.  To  the  rest  of 
the  people,  however,  the  method  of  the  consumma- 
tion was  not  so  clear,  and  they  were  ready  to  leave 
God  to  work  out  his  purpose  in  his  own  way,  long- 
ing meanwhile  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise. 
One  class  in  particular  gave  themselves  to  visionary 
representations  of  the  promised  redemption.  They 
differed  from  the  Zealots  in  that  they  saw  with 
unwelcome  clearness  the  futility  of  physical  attack 
upon  their  enemies ;  but  their  faith  was  strong,  and 
at  the  moment  when  outward  conditions  seemed 
most  disheartening  they  looked  for  a  revelation  of 
God's  power  from  heaven,  destroying  all  sinners 
in  his  wrath,  and  delivering  and  comforting  his  peo- 
ple, giving  them  their  lot  in  a  veritable  Canaan 
situated  in  a  renewed  earth.  Such  visions  are  re- 
corded in  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelation  of 
John.  They  are  found  in  many  other  apocalypses  not 
included  in  our  Bible,  and  indicate  how  persistently 
the  minds  of  the  people  turned  towards  the  prom- 
ises spoken  by  the  prophets,  and  meditated  on  their 
fulfilment.  The  Devout  Avere  midway  between  the 
Zealots   and  the  Apocalyptists.     The  songs  of  Zach- 


18  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

ariah  and  Mary  and  the  thanksgiving  of  Simeon 
express  their  faith.  They  hoped  for  a  kingdom  as 
tangible  as  the  Zealots  sought,  yet  they  preferred 
to  wait  for  the  consolation  of  Israel.  They  be- 
lieved that  God  was  still  in  his  heaven,  that  he  was 
not  disregardful  of  his  people,  and  that  in  his  own 
time  he  would  raise  up  unto  them  their  king.  They 
looked  for  a  Son  of  David,  yet  his  reign  was  to  be 
as  remarkable  for  its  purification  of  his  own  people  as 
for  its  victories  over  their  foes.  These  victories  in- 
deed were  to  be  largely  spiritual,  for  their  Messiah 
was  to  conquer  in  the  strength  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
and  "  by  the  word  of  his  mouth."  Such  as  these  were 
ready  for  a  ministry  like  John's,  and  not  unready  for 
the  new  ideal  which  Jesus  was  about  to  offer  them, 
though  their  highest  spiritualization  of  the  Messianic 
hope  was  but  a  shadow  of  the  reality  which  Jesus 
asked  them  to  accept. 

18.  This  last  conception  of  the  Messiah  is  found  in 
a  group  of  psalms  written  in  the  first  century  before 
Christ,  during  the  early  days  of  the  Roman  interfer- 
ence in  Judea.  These  Psalms  of  Solomon,  as  they  are 
called,  are  pharisaic  in  point  of  view,  yet  they  are  not 
rabbinic  in  their  ideas.  Their  feeling  is  too  deep,  and 
their  reliance  on  God  too  immediate ;  they  fitly  follow 
the  psalms  of  the  Old  Testament,  though  afar  off.  Of 
another  type  of  contemporary  literature,  Apocalypse, 
at  least  two  representatives  besides  the  Book  of  Daniel 
have  come  down  to  us  from  the  time  of  Jesus  or 
earlier,  —  the  so-called  Book  of  Enoch,  and  the  frag- 
ment known  as  the  Assumption  of  Moses.  These 
writings  have  peculiar  interest,  because  they  are  prob- 
ably the  source  of  quotations  found  in  the  Epistle  of 


LANGUAGE  OF  PALESTINE  19 

Jude ;  moreover,  some  sayings  of  Jesus  reported  in 
the  gospels,  and  in  particular  his  chosen  title,  The  Son 
of  Man,  are  strikingly  similar  to  expressions  found 
in  Enoch.  Can  Jesus  have  read  these  books?  The 
psalms  of  the  Devout  were  the  kind  of  literature  to 
pass  rapidly  from  heart  to  heart,  until  all  who  sympa- 
thized with  their  hope  and  faith  had  heard  or  seen 
them.  The  case  was  different  with  the  apocalypses. 
They  are  more  elaborate  and  enigmatical,  and  may 
have  been  only  slightly  known.  Yet,  as  Jesus  was 
familiar  with  the  canonical  Book  of  Daniel,  although 
it  was  not  read  in  the  synagogue  service  in  his  time, 
it  is  possible  that  he  may  also  have  read  or  heard  other 
books  which  had  not  won  recognition  as  canonical.  If, 
however,  he  knew  nothing  of  them,  the  similarity  be- 
tween the  apocalypses  and  some  of  Jesus'  ideas  and 
expressions  becomes  all  the  more  significant ;  for  it 
shows  that  these  writings  gave  utterance  to  thoughts 
and  feelings  shared  by  men  who  never  read  them, 
which  were,  therefore,  no  isolated  fancies,  but  charac- 
teristic of  the  religion  of  many  of  the  people.  With 
these  ideas  Jesus  was  familiar ;  whether  he  ever  read 
the  books  must  remain  a  question. 

19.  This  literature  exists  for  us  only  in  translations 
made  in  the  days  of  the  early  church.  Most  of  these 
books  were  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  the  language 
of  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  Aramaic,  the  language 
of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  Traces  of  this 
language  as  spoken  by  Jesus  have  been  preserved  in 
the  gospels,  —  the  name  Bahhi ;  Ahha,  translated 
Father;  Talitha  cimii,  addressed  to  the  daughter  of 
Jairus  ;  UpJiphatha,  to  the  deaf  man  of  Bethsaida ;  and 
the  cry  from  the  cross,  Eloi,  Eloi^   lama  sahachthani 


20  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

(John  i.  38;  Mark  xiv.  36;  v.  41;  vii.  34;  xv.  34). 
It  is  altogether  probable  that  in  his  common  dealings 
with  men  and  in  his  teachings  Jesus  used  this  language. 
Greek  was  the  language  of  the  government  and  of 
trade,  and  in  a  measure  the  Jews  were  a  bilingual 
people.  Jesus  may  thus  have  had  some  Ivnowledge 
of  Greek,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  he  ever  used  it 
to  any  extent  either  in  Galilee,  or  Judea,  or  in  the 
regions  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 


II 

SOUECES  OF  OUR  KNOWLEDGE  OF  JESUS 

20.  The  earliest  existing  record  of  events  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  is  given  to  us  in  the  epistles  of  Paul. 
His  account  of  the  appearances  of  the  Lord  after  his 
death  and  resurrection  (I.  Cor.  xv.  3-8)  was  written 
within  thirty  years  of  these  events.  The  date  of  the 
testimony,  however,  is  much  earlier,  since  Paul  refers 
to  the  experience  which  transformed  his  own  life,  and 
so  carries  us  back  to  within  a  few  years  of  the  cruci- 
fixion. Other  facts  from  Jesus'  life  may  be  gathered 
from  Paul,  as  his  descent  from  Abraham  and  David 
(Rom.  i.  3;  ix.  5);  his  life  of  obedience  (Rom.  v.  19; 
XV.  3;  Phil.  ii.  5-11);  his  poverty  (II.  Cor.  viii.  9); 
his  meekness  and  gentleness  (II.  Cor.  x.  1);  other 
New  Testament  writings  outside  of  our  gospels  add 
somewhat  to  this  restricted  but  very  clear  testimony. 

21.  Secular  history  knows  little  of  the  obscure 
Galilean.  The  testimony  of  Tacitus  is  that  the  Chris- 
tians "  derived  their  name  and  origin  from  one  Christ, 
who  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  had  suffered  death  by 
the  sentence  of  the  procurator,  Pontius  Pilate  "  (An- 
nals, XV.  44).  Suetonius  makes  an  obscure  and  seem- 
ingly ill-informed  allusion  to  Christ  in  the  reason 
he  assigns  for  the  edict  of  Claudius  expelling  the 
Jews  from  Rome  (Vit.  Claud.  25).  The  younger 
Pliny  in   the   second   century   had   learned   that  the 


22  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

numerous  Christian  community  in  Bithynia  was  ac- 
customed to  honor  Christ  as  God;  but  he  shows  no 
knowledge  of  the  life  of  Jesus  beyond  what  must  be 
inferred  concerning  one  who  caused  men  "to  bind 
themselves  with  an  oath  not  to  enter  into  any  wick- 
edness, or  commit  thefts,  robberies,  or  adulteries,  or 
falsify  their  word,  or  repudiate  trusts  committed  to 
them  "  (Epistles  x.  96).  This  secular  ignorance  is  not 
surprising;  but  the  silence  of  Josephus  is.  He  men- 
tions Jesus  in  but  one  clearly  genuine  passage,  when 
telling  of  the  martyrdom  of  James,  the  "brother  of 
Jesus,  who  is  called  the  Christ "  (Ant.  xx.  9.  1).  Of 
John  the  Baptist,  however,  he  has  a  very  appreciative 
notice  (Ant.  xviii.  5.  2),  and  it  cannot  be  that  he  was 
ignorant  of  Jesus.  His  appreciation  of  John  sug- 
gests that  he  could  not  have  mentioned  Jesus  more 
fully  without  some  approval  of  his  life  and  teaching. 
This  would  be  a  condemnation  of  his  own  people, 
whom  he  desired  to  commend  to  Gentile  regard;  and 
he  seems  to  have  taken  the  cowardly  course  of  silence 
concerning  a  matter  more  noteworthy,  even  for  that 
generation,  than  much  else  of  which  he  writes  very 
fully. 

22.  The  reason  for  the  lack  of  written  Christian 
records  of  Jesus'  life  from  the  earliest  time  seems  to 
be,  not  that  the  apostles  had  a  small  sense  of  the 
importance  of  his  earthly  ministry,  but  that  the  early 
generation  preferred  what  at  a  later  time  was  called 
the  "  living  voice  "  (Papias  in  Euseb.  Ch.  Hist.  iii.  39). 
The  impression  made  by  Jesus  was  supremely  personal ; 
he  wrote  nothing,  did  not  command  his  disciples  to 
write  anything,  preferring  to  influence  men's  minds  by 
personal  power,  appointing  them,  in  turn,  to  represent 


THE   FIRST   GOSPEL  23 

him  to  men  as  lie  had  represented  the  Father  to  them 
(John  XX.  21).  But  the  time  came  when  tlie  first 
Avitnesses  were  passing  away,  and  they  were  not  many 
who  could  say,  "I  saw  him."  Oar  gospels  are  the 
result  of  the  natural  desire  to  preserve  the  apostolic 
testimony  for  a  generation  that  could  no  longer  hear 
the  apostolic  voice ;  and  they  are  precisely  what  such 
a  sense  of  need  would  produce,  ■ — ■  vivid  pictures  of 
Jesus,  agreeing  in  general  features,  differing  more  or 
less  in  details,  reflecting  individual  feeling  for  the 
Master,  and  written  not  simply  to  inform  men  but  to 
convince  them  of  that  Master's  claims.  One  evidence 
of  the  reality  of  the  gospel  pictures  is  the  fact  that  we 
so  seldom  feel  the  individual  characteristics  of  each 
gospel.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  first  three, 
which,  to  the  vividness  of  their  picture,  add  a  remark- 
able similarity  of  detail.  Tatiau,  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, felt  it  necessary  to  make  a  continuous  narrative 
for  the  use  of  the  church  by  interweaving  the  four 
gospels  into  one,  and  he  has  had  many  successors 
down  to  our  day;  but  the  fact  that  unity  of  impres- 
sion has  practically  resulted  from  the  four  pictures 
without  recourse  to  such  an  interweaving,  invites 
consideration  of  the  characteristics  of  these  remark- 
able documents. 

23.  The  first  gospel  impresses  the  careful  reader 
with  three  things :  (1)  A  clear  sense  of  the  develop- 
ment of  Jesus'  ministry.  The  author  introduces  his 
narrative  by  an  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesas,  of  the 
ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  of  Jesus'  baptism 
and  temptation  and  withdrawal  into  Galilee  (i.  1  to 
iv.  17).  He  then  depicts  the  public  ministry  by 
grouping  together,  first,  teachings  of  Jesus  concerning 


24  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

the  law  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  then  a  series  of 
great  miracles  confirming  the  new  doctrine,  then  the 
expansion  of  the  ministry  and  deepening  hostility  of 
the  Pharisees,  leading  to  the  teaching  by  parables,  and 
the  final  Avithdrawal  from  Galilee  to  the  north.  This 
ministry  resulted  in  the  chilling  of  popular  enthusiasm 
which  had  been  strong  at  the  beginning,  but  in  the 
winning  of  a  few  hearts  to  Jesus'  own  ideals  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  (iv.  18  to  xvi.  20).  From  this  point 
the  evangelist  leads  us  to  Jerusalem,  where  rejection 
culminates,  the  sterner  teachings  of  Jesus  are  massed, 
and  his  victory  in  seeming  defeat  is  exhibited  (xvi.  21 
to  xxviii.  20).  (2)  The  evangelist's  interest  is  not 
satisfied  by  this  clear,  strong,  picture;  he  wishes  to 
convince  men  that  Jesus  is  Israel's  Messiah,  hence, 
throughout,  he  indicates  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 
The  things  in  which  he  sees  the  fulfilment  are  strik- 
ing, for,  with  but  one  or  two  exceptions,  they  are 
features  of  the  life  of  Jesus  objectionable  to  Jewish 
feeling.  This  fact,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
emphasis  which  the  gospel  gives  to  the  death  of  Jesus 
at  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  and  to  the  resurrection  as 
God's  seal  of  approval  of  him  whom  his  people  rejected, 
forms  a  forcible  argument  to  prove  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  not  simply  in  spite  of  his  rejection  by  the  Jews, 
but  by  appeal  to  that  rejection  as  leading  to  God's 
signal  vindication  of  the  crucified  one.  (3)  This 
evangelist,  vv^hile  proving  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah 
promised  to  Israel,  recognizes  clearly  the  freedom  of 
the  new  faith  from  the  exclusiveness  of  Jewish  feel- 
ing. The  choice  of  Galilee  for  the  Messianic  ministry 
(iv.  12-17),  the  comment  of  Jesus  on  the  faith  of  the 
centurion  (viii.  10-12),  the  rebuke   of  Israel   in  the 


THE   SECOND  GOSPEL  25 

parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen  (xxi.  33-46),  and 
especially  the  last  commission  of  the  risen  Lord 
(xxviii.  18-20),  show  that  this  gospel  sought  to  con- 
vince men  of  Jewish  feeling  not  only  that  Jesus  is 
Messiah,  but  also  that  as  Messiah  he  came  to  bring 
salvation  to  all  the  world. 

24.  The  second  gospel  is  much  simpler  in  construc- 
tion than  the  first,  while  presenting  essentially  the  same 
picture  of  the  ministry  as  is  found  in  Matthew.  To  its 
simplicity  it  adds  a  vividness  of  narration  which  com- 
mends Mark's  account  as  probably  representing  most 
nearly  the  actual  course  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  While 
it  reports  fewer  incidents  and  teachings  than  either 
of  the  others,  a  comparison  with  Matthew  and  Luke 
shows  a  preference  in  Mark  for  Jesus'  deeds,  though 
addresses  are  not  wanting;  and,  while  shorter  as  a 
whole,  for  matters  which  he  reports  Mark's  record  is 
most  rich  in  detail,  most  dramatic  in  presentation,  and 
actually  longer  than  the  parallel  accounts  in  the  other 
gospels.  The  whole  narrative  is  animated  in  style 
(note  the  oft-repeated  "immediately")  and  full  of 
graphic  traits.  The  story  of  Jesus  seems  to  be  repro- 
duced from  a  memory  which  retains  fresh  personal 
impressions  of  events  as  they  occurred.  Hence  the 
frequent  comments  on  the  effect  of  Jesus'  ministry, 
such  as  "We  never  saw  it  on  this  fashion  "  (ii.  12),  or 
"  He  hath  done  all  things  well "  (vii.  37),  and  the 
introduction  into  the  narrative  of  Aramaic  words,  — 
Boanerges  (iii.  17),  Talitha  cumi  (v.  41),  and  the 
like,  which  immediately  have  to  be  translated.  The 
gospel  discloses  no  artificial  plan,  the  chief  word  of 
transition  is  "and."  While  some  of  the  incidents 
recorded,    such   as   the    second   Sabbath    controversy 


26  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

(iii.  1-6)  and  the  question  about  fasting  (ii.  18-22), 
may  owe  their  place  to  association  in  memory  with  an 
event  of  like  character,  the  book  impresses  us  as  a  col- 
lection of  annals  fresh  from  the  living  memory,  which 
present  the  actual  Jesus  teaching  and  healing,  and  going 
on  his  way  to  the  cross  and  resurrection.  After  the 
briefest  possible  reference  to  the  ministry  of  John  the 
Baptist  and  the  baptism  and  temptation  of  Jesus 
(i.  1-13),  this  gospel  proceeds  to  set  forth  the  ministry 
in  Galilee  (i.  14  to  ix.  50).  The  narrative  then  follows 
Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  by  way  of  Perea,  and  closes  with 
his  victory  through  death  and  resurrection  (x.  1  to 
xvi.  8). 

25.  The  third  gospel  is  more  nearly  a  biography 
than  any  of  its  companions.  It  opens  with  a  preface 
stating  that  after  a  study  of  many  earlier  attempts  to 
record  the  life  of  Jesus  the  author  has  undertaken  to 
present  as  complete  an  account  as  possible  of  that  life 
from  the  beginning.  The  book  is  addressed  to  one 
Theophilus,  doubtless  a  Greek  Christian,  and  its  chief 
aim  is  practical,  —  to  confirm  conviction  concerning 
matters  of  faith  (i.  1-4).  The  author's  interest  in  the 
completeness  of  his  account  appears  in  the  fact  that  it 
begins  with  incidents  antecedent  to  the  birth  of  John 
the  Baptist  and  Jesus.  Moreover,  to  his  desire  for 
completeness  we  owe  much  of  the  story  of  Jesus,  other- 
wise unrecorded  for  us.  Like  the  first  two  gospels, 
Luke  represents  the  ministry  of  Jesus  as  inaugurated 
in  Galilee,  and  carried  on  there  until  the  approach  of 
the  tragedy  at  Jerusalem  (iv.  14  to  ix.  50).  It  is  in 
connection  with  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  (ix.  51  to 
xix.  27)  that  he  inserts  most  of  that  which  is  peculiar 
to  his  gospel.     His  account  of  the  rejection  at  Jeru- 


THE  THIRD  GOSPEL  27 

salem,  the  crucifixion,  and  resurrection,  follows  in 
the  main  the  same  lines  as  Matthew  and  Mark;  but 
he  gained  his  knowledge  of  many  particulars  from 
different  sources  (xix.  28  to  xxiv.  53).  It  is  charac- 
teristic of  Luke  to  name  Jesus  "Lord"  more  often 
than  either  of  his  predecessors.  With  this  exalted 
conception  is  coupled  a  noticeable  emphasis  on  Jesus' 
ministry  of  compassion;  here  more  than  in  any  other 
gospel  he  is  pictured  as  the  friend  of  sinners. 
Moreover,  we  owe  chiefly  to  Luke  our  knowledge 
of  him  as  a  man  of  prayer  and  as  subject  to  re- 
peated temptation.  An  artificial  exaltation  of  Christ, 
such  as  is  often  attributed  to  the  later  apostolic 
thought,  would  tend  to  reduce,  not  multiply,  such 
evidences  of  human  dependence  on  God.  This  fact 
increases  our  confidence  in  the  accuracy  of  Luke's 
picture.  The  gospel  is  very  full  of  comfort  to  those 
under  the  pressure  of  poverty,  and  of  rebuke  to 
unbelieving  wealth,  though  the  parable  of  the  Unjust 
Steward  and  story  of  Zacchaeus  show  that  it  does  not 
exalt  poverty  for  its  own  sake.  If  our  first  gospel 
pictures  Jesus  as  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises  to 
his  people,  and  Mark,  as  the  man  of  power  at  work 
before  our  very  eyes,  astonishing  the  multitude  while 
winning  the  few,  Luke  sets  before  us  the  Lord  minis- 
tering with  divine  compassion  to  men  subject  to  like 
temptations  with  himself,  though,  unlike  them,  he 
knew  no  sin. 

26.  The  first  three  gospels,  differing  as  they  do  in 
point  of  view  and  aim,  present  essentially  one  picture 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus;  for  they  agree  concerning 
the  locality  and  progress  of  his  Messianic  work,  and 
the   form   and  contents   of  his  teaching,  showing,  in 


28  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

fact,  verbal  identity  in  many  parts  of  their  narrative. 
For  this  reason  they  are  commonly  known  as  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  Yet  these  gospels  exhibit  differ- 
ences as  remarkable  as  their  likenesses.  They  differ 
perplexingly  in  the  order  in  which  they  arrange  some 
of  the  events  in  Jesus'  life.  Which  of  them  should  be 
given  preference  in  constructing  a  harmonious  picture 
of  his  ministry?  They  often  agree  to  the  letter  in 
their  report  of  deeds  or  words  of  Jesus,  yet  from 
beginning  to  end  remarkable  verbal  differences  stand 
side  by  side  with  remarkable  verbal  identities.  Some 
of  the  identities  of  language  suggest  irresistibly  that 
the  evangelists  have  used,  at  least  in  part,  the  same 
previously  existing  written  record.  One  of  the  clearest 
evidences  of  this  is  found  in  the  introduction,  at  the 
same  place  in  the  parallel  accounts,  of  the  parenthe- 
sis "then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy"  which 
interrupts  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  cure  of  the 
paralytic  (Mark  ii.  10;  Matt.  ix.  6;  Luke  v.  24). 
When  the  three  gospels  are  carefully  compared  it  ap- 
pears that  Mark  contains  very  little  that  is  not  found 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  that,  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions, Luke  presents  in  Mark's  order  the  matter  that 
he  has  in  common  with  the  second  gospel.  The  same 
is  also  true  of  the  relation  between  the  latter  part  of 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  (Matt.  xiv.  1  to  the  end)  and 
the  parallel  portion  of  Mark;  while  the  comparison  of 
Matthew's  arrangement  of  his  earlier  half  with  Mark 
suggests  that  the  order  in  the  first  gospel  has  been 
determined  by  other  than  chronological  consider- 
ations. In  a  sense,  therefore,  we  may  say  that  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  reveals  the  chronological  framework 
on  which  all  three  of  these  gospels  are  constructed. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  29 

Comparison  discloses  further  the  interesting  fact 
that  the  matter  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  in 
common,  after  subtracting  their  parallels  to  Mark, 
consists  almost  entirely  of  teachings  and  addresses. 
Each  gospel,  however,  has  some  matter  peculiar  to 
itself. 

27.  In  considering  the  problem  presented  by  these 
facts,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  no  one  of  these 
gospels  contains  within  itself  any  statement  concerning 
the  identity  of  its  author.  We  are  indebted  to  tradi- 
tion for  the  names  by  wdiich  we  know  them,  and  no 
one  of  them  makes  any  claim  to  apostolic  origin.  The 
earliest  reference  in  Christian  literature  which  may  be 
applied  to  our  gospels  comes  from  Papias,  a  Christian 
of  Asia  Minor  in  the  second  century.  He  reports 
that  an  earlier  teacher  had  said,  "Mark,  having 
become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accu- 
rately, though  not,  indeed,  in  order,  whatsoever  he 
remembered  of  the  things  said  or  done  by  Christ,  for 
he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  followed  him,  but  after- 
ward, as  I  said,  he  followed  Peter,  who  adapted  his 
teachings  to  the  needs  of  his  hearers,  but  with  no 
intention  of  giving  a  connected  account  of  the  Lord's 
discourses.  So  that  Mark  committed  no  error  when 
he  thus  wrote  some  things  as  he  remembered  them,  for 
he  was  careful  of  one  thing,  not  to  omit  any  of  the 
things  which  he  had  heard  and  not  to  state  any  of 
them  falsely.  .  .  .  Matthew  wrote  the  oracles  [of  the 
Lord]  in  the  Hebrew  language  [Aramaic],  and  every 
one  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able"  (Euseb.  Ch. 
Hist.  iii.  39).  The  result  of  many  years'  study  by 
scholars  of  all  shades  of  opinion  is  the  ver}'-  general 
conclusion  that  the  writing  which   Papias  attributed 


30  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

to  Mark  was  essentially  what  we  have  in  our  second 
gospel. 

28.  It  is  almost  as  universally  acknowledged  that 
the  work  ascribed  by  the  second  century  elder  to  the 
apostle  Matthew  cannot  be  our  first  gospel;  for  its 
language  has  not  the  characteristics  which  other  trans- 
lations from  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  lead  us  to  expect, 
while  the  completeness  of  its  narrative  exceeds  what  is 
suggested  by  the  words  of  Papias.  If,  however,  the 
matter  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  in  such  rich 
measure  in  addition  to  Mark's  narrative  be  consid- 
ered, the  likeness  between  this  and  the  writing  attrib- 
uted by  Papias  to  the  apostle  Matthew  is  noteworthy. 
The  conclusion  is  now  very  general,  that  that  apos- 
tolic writing  is  in  large  measure  preserved  in  the  dis- 
courses in  our  first  and  third  gospels.  The  relation 
of  our  gospels  to  the  two  books  mentioned  by  Papias 
may  be  conceived,  then,  somewhat  as  follows:  The 
earliest  gospel  writing  of  which  we  know  anything 
was  a  collection  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  made  by  the 
apostle  Matthew,  in  which  he  collected  with  simple 
narrative  introductions,  those  sayings  of  the  Lord 
which  from  the  beginning  had  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth  in  the  circle  of  the  disciples.  At  a  later  time 
Mark  wrote  down  the  account  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
which  Peter  had  been  accustomed  to  relate  in  his 
apostolic  preaching.  The  work  of  the  apostle  Mat- 
thew, while  much  richer  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus, 
lacked  the  completeness  that  characterizes  a  narrative  ; 
hence  it  occurred  to  some  early  disciple  to  blend 
together  these  two  primitive  gospel  records,  adding 
such  other  items  of  knowledge  as  came  to  his  hand 
from   oral  tradition  or  written   memoranda.     As   his 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  31 

aim  was  practical  rather  than  historical,  he  added  such 
editorial  comments  as  would  make  of  the  new  gospel 
an  argument  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  as  we 
have  seen.  Since  the  most  precious  element  in  this 
new  gospel  was  the  apostolic  record  of  the  teachings  of 
the  Lord,  the  name  of  Matthew  and  not  of  his  literary 
successor,  was  given  to  the  book. 

29.  The  third  gospel  is  ascribed,  by  a  probably 
trustworthy  tradition,  to  Luke,  the  companion  of 
Paul.  The  author  himself  says  that  he  made  use  of 
such  earlier  records  as  were  accessible,  among  which 
the  chief  seem  to  have  been  the  writings  of  Mark  and 
the  apostle  Matthew.  To  Luke's  industry,  however, 
we  owe  our  knowledge  of  many  incidents  and  teach- 
ings from  the  life  of  Jesus  which  were  not  contained 
in  these  two  records,  and  with  which  we  could  ill 
afford  to  part.  Some  of  these  he  doubtless  found  in 
written  form,  and  some  he  gathered  from  oral  testi- 
mony. His  close  agreement  with  Mark  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  his  narrative  suggests  that  he  found  no  clear 
evidence  of  a  ministry  of  wider  extent  in  time  and 
place.  He  therefore  used  Mark  as  his  narrative  frame- 
work, and  of  the  rich  materials  which  he  had  gathered 
made  a  gospel,  the  completest  of  any  written  up  to 
his  time. 

30.  Such  in  the  main  is  the  conclusion  of  modern 
study  of  our  first  three  gospels ;  it  explains  the  general 
identity  of  their  picture  of  Jesus  and  of  their  report  of 
his  teaching ;  it  leaves  room  for  those  individual  char- 
acteristics which  give  them  so  much  of  their  charm; 
and  it  traces  the  materials  of  the  gospels  far  back  of 
the  writings  as  we  have  them,  bringing  us  nearer  to 
the  events  which  they  describe.     The  dates  of  these 


32  THE  LITE  OF  JESUS 

documents  can  be  only  approximately  known.  It  is 
probable  that  the  "logia"  collected  by  the  apostle 
Matthew  were  written  not  later  than  60  to  65  a.  d., 
while  the  Gospel  of  Mark  dates  from  before  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  in  70.  Our  first  gospel  must  have  been 
made  between  70  and  100,  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
may  be  dated  about  the  year  80,  ■ —  all  within  sixty  or 
seventy  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus. 

31.  The  fourth  gospel  gives  us  a  picture  of  Jesus 
in  striking  contrast  to  that  of  the  other  three.  These 
present  chiefly  the  works  of  the  Master  and  his  teach- 
ings concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  human  con- 
duct, leaving  the  truth  concerning  the  teacher  himself 
to  be  inferred.  John  opens  the  heart  of  Jesus  and 
makes  him  disclose  his  thought  about  himself  in  a  re- 
markable series  of  teachings  of  which  he  is  the  prime 
topic.  This  gospel  is  avowedly  an  argument  (xx.  30, 
31);  its  selection  of  material  is  confessedly  partial; 
its  aim  is  to  confirm  the  faith  of  Christians  in  the 
heavenly  nature  and  saving  power  of  their  Lord ;  and 
its  method  is  that  of  appeal  to  testimony,  to  signs, 
and  to  his  own  self-disclosures.  The  opening  verses 
of  the  gospel  have  a  somewhat  abstract  theological 
character;  the  body  of  the  book,  however,  consists  of 
a  succession  of  incidents  and  teachings  which  follow 
each  other  in  unstudied  fashion  like  a  collection  of  an- 
nals. This  impression  is  not  compromised  by  the  recog- 
nition, at  some  points,  of  accidental  displacements,  like 
that  which  has  placed  xiv.  30,  31  before  xv.  and  xvi.,  or 
that  which  has  left  a  long  gap  between  vii.  23  and  the 
incident  of  v.  1-9,  to  which  it  refers.  The  theme  of 
the  gospel  is  the  self-disclosure  of  Jesus.  This  seems 
to  have  determined  the  evangelist's  choice  of  material, 


THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  33 

and,  as  the  gospel  is  an  argument,  he  does  not  hesi- 
tate to  mingle  his  own  comments  with  his  report  of 
Jesus'  words,  for  example  (iii.  16-21,  30-36 ;  xii. 
37-43).  The  book  is  characterized  by  a  vividness  of 
detail  which  indicates  a  clear  memory  of  personal  ex- 
perience. While  it  is  evident  that  the  author  has  the 
most  exalted  conception  of  the  nature  of  his  Lord,  this 
seems  to  have  been  the  result  of  loving  meditation  on 
a  friend  who  had  early  won  the  mastery  over  his  heart 
and  life,  and  who  through  long  years  of  contemplation 
had  forced  upon  his  disciple's  mind  the  conviction  of 
his  transcendent  nature.  The  book  discloses  a  pro- 
foundly objective  attitude;  the  Christ  whom  John 
portrays  is  not  the  creature  of  his  speculations,  but 
the  Master  who  has  entered  into  his  experience  as  a 
living  influence  and  has  compelled  recognition  of  his 
significance.  The  Son  of  God  is  for  John  the  human 
Jesus  who,  though  named  at  the  outset  the  Word  — 
the  Logos,  —  is  the  Word  who  was  made  flesh,  that  men 
through  him  might  become  the  sons  of  God. 

32.  The  contrast  which  the  Gospel  of  John  presents 
to  the  other  three  concerns  not  only  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  but  the  scene  of  his  ministry  and  its  historic 
development  as  well.  Whatever  may  be  the  final  judg- 
ment concerning  the  fourth  gospel,  it  is  manifestly 
constructed  as  a  simple  collection  of  incidents  follow- 
ing each  other  in  what  was  meant  to  appear  a  chrono- 
logical sequence.  It  has  been  seen  that  the  biographical 
framework  of  the  first  three  gospels  is  principally 
Mark's  report  of  Peter's  narrative.  Now  it  is  a  fact 
that  in  portions  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  derived  else- 
where than  from  IMark,  there  are  various  allusions 
most  easily  understood  if  it  be  assumed   that  Jesus 


34  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

visited  Jerusalem  before  his  appearance  there  at  the 
end  of  his  ministry.  Such,  for  instance,  are  the  par- 
able of  the  Good  Samaritan  (Luke  x.  25-37),  the  story 
of  the  visit  to  Mary  and  Martha  (Luke  x.  38-42), 
and  the  lamentation  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem  (Luke 
xiii.  34,  35;  Matt,  xxiii.  37-39).  All  three  gospels, 
moreover,  agree  in  attributing  to  emissaries  from  Jeru- 
salem much  of  the  hostility  manifested  against  Jesus 
in  his  Galilean  ministry  (Luke  v.  17;  Mark  iii.  22; 
Matt.  XV.  1 ;  Mark  vii.  1),  and  presuppose  such  an  ac- 
quaintance of  Jesus  with  households  in  and  near  Jeru- 
salem as  is  not  easy  to  explain  if  he  never  visited 
Judea  before  his  passion  (Mark  xi.  2,  3;  xiv.  14;  xv. 
43  and  parallels;  compare  especially  Matt,  xxvii.  57; 
John  xix.  38).  These  all  suggest  that  the  narrative  of 
Mark  does  not  tell  the  whole  story,  a  conclusion  quite 
in  accordance  with  the  account  of  his  work  given  by 
Papias.  It  has  been  assumed  that  Peter  was  a  Gali- 
lean, a  man  of  family  living  in  Capernaum.  It  is  not , 
impossible  that  on  some  of  the  earlier  visits  of  Jesus 
to  Jerusalem  he  did  not  accompany  his  Master,  and 
in  reporting  the  things  which  he  knew  he  naturally 
confined  himself  to  his  own  experiences.  If  this  can 
explain  the  predominance  of  Galilean  incidents  in  the 
ministry  as  depicted  in  Mark,  it  will  explain  the  pre- 
dominance of  Galilee  in  the  first  three  gospels,  and  the 
contradiction  betv/een  John  and  the  three  is  reduced 
to  a  divergence  between  two  accounts  of  Jesus'  minis- 
try written  from  two  different  points  of  view. 

83.  The  question  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
fourth  gospel  is  greatly  simplified  by  the  consideration 
of  the  one-sidedness  of  Mark's  representation.  It  is 
further  relieved  by  the  fact  that  a  ministry  by  Jesus  in 


THE  FOUKTH  GOSPEL  35 

Jernsalem  must  have  been  one  of  constant  self-asser- 
tion, for  Jerusalem  represented  at  its  highest  those 
aspects  of  thought  and  practice  which  were  funda- 
mentally opposed  to  all  that  Jesus  did  and  taught. 
Whenever  in  Galilee,  in  the  ministry  pictured  by  the 
first  three  gospels,  Jesus  came  in  contact  with  the 
spirit  and  feeling  characteristic  of  Jerusalem,  we  find 
him  meeting  it  by  unqualified  assertion  of  his  own  in- 
dependence and  exalted  claim  to  authority,  altogether 
similar  to  that  emphasis  of  his  own  significance  and  im- 
portance which  is  the  chief  characteristic  of  his  teach- 
ings in  the  fourth  gospel.  If  it  be  remembered  that  that 
gospel  was  avowedly  an  argument  written  to  commend 
to  others  the  reverent  conclusion  concerning  the  Lord 
reached  by  a  disciple  whose  thought  had  dwelt  for 
long  years  on  the  marvel  of  that  life,  and  if  we  recog- 
nize that  for  such  an  argument  the  author  would  select 
the  instances  and  teachings  most  telling  for  his  own 
purpose,  and  would  do  this  as  naturally  as  the  magnet 
draws  to  itself  iron  filings  which  are  mingled  with  a 
pile  of  sand,  the  exclusively  personal  character  of  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  in  this  gospel  need  cause  little  per- 
plexity. Nor  need  it  seem  surprising  that  the  words 
of  Jesus  as  reported  in  John  share  the  peculiarities  of 
style  which  mark  the  work  of  the  evangelist  in  the 
prologue  to  the  gospel  and  in  his  epistles.  His  pur- 
pose was  not  primarily  biographical  but  argumentative, 
and  he  has  set  forth  the  picture  of  his  Lord  as  it  rose 
before  his  own  heart,  his  memory  of  events  being  inter- 
woven with  contemplation  on  the  significance  of  that 
life  with  which  his  had  been  so  blessedly  associated. 
In  a  gospel  written  avowedly  to  produce  in  others  a 
conviction  like  his  own,  the  evangelist  would  not  have 


36  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

been  sensible  of  any  obligation  to  draw  sharp  lines 
between  his  recollection  of  his  Lord's  words  and  his 
own  contemplations  upon  them  and  upon  their  signifi- 
cance for  his  life.  If  these  considerations  be  kept  in 
mind  we  may  accept  the  uniform  tradition  of  anti- 
quity, confirmed  by  the  plain  intimation  of  the  gospel 
itself,  that  it  is  essentially  the  work  of  John,  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  written  near  the  close  of  his  life  in  Ephe- 
sus,  in  the  last  decade  of  the  first  century. 

34.  We  have  in  our  gospel  records,  therefore,  two 
authorities  for  the  general  course  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus,  —  Mark  and  John.  Even  if  the  fourth  gospel 
should  be  proved  not  to  be  the  work  of  John,  its  picture 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  must  be  recognized  as  coming 
from  some  apostolic  source.  A  forger  would  hardly 
have  invited  the  rejection  of  his  work  by  inventing 
a  narrative  which  seems  to  contradict  at  so  many 
points  the  tradition  of  the  other  gospels.  The  first 
and  third  gospels  furnish  us  from  various  sources  rich 
additions  to  Mark's  narrative,  and  it  is  to  these  two 
with  the  fourth  that  we  turn  chiefly  for  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  Each  gospel  should  be  read,  therefore,  re- 
membering its  incompleteness,  remembering  also  the 
particular  purpose  and  individual  enthusiasm  for  Jesus 
which  produced  it. 

35.  A  word  may  be  due  to  two  other  claimants  to 
recognition  as  original  records  from  the  life  of  Jesus. 
One  class  is  represented  by  that  word  of  the  Lord 
which  Paul  quoted  to  the  Ephesian  elders  at  Miletus 
(Acts  XX.  35).  Scattered  here  and  there  in  writings 
of  the  apostolic  and  succeeding  ages  are  other  sayings 
attributed  to  Jesus  which  cannot  be  found  in  our  gos- 
pels.    A  few  of  these  so-called  Agrapha  seem  worthy 


AGRAPHA  AND  APOCRYPHA  37 

of  him,  and  are  recognized  as  probably  genuine.  The 
most  important  of  them  is  the  story  of  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery  (John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11),  which, 
though  not  a  part  of  the  gospel  of  John,  doubtless  gives 
a  true  incident  from  Jesus'  life.  They  represent  the 
"  many  other  "  things  which  John  and  the  other  gospels 
have  omitted,  but  their  small  number  proves  that  our 
gospels  have  preserved  for  us  practically  all  that  was 
known  of  Jesus  after  the  first  witnesses  fell  asleep. 
It  is  certainly  surprising  that  so  little  exists  to  sup- 
plement the  story  of  the  gospels,  for  they  are  mani- 
festly fragmentary,  and  leave  much  of  Jesus'  public 
life  without  any  record.  The  other  class  of  claimants 
is  of  a  quite  different  character,  —  the  so-called  Apoc- 
ryphal Gospels.  These  consist  chiefly  of  legends  con- 
nected with  the  birth  and  early  years  of  Jesus,  and 
with  his  death  and  resurrection.  They  are  for  the 
most  part  crude  tales  that  have  entirely  mistaken  the 
real  character  of  him  whom  they  seek  to  exalt,  and 
need  only  to  be  read  to  be  rejected. 


Ill 


THE  HAEMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

36.  The  church  early  appreciated  the  value  and 
the  difficulty  of  having  four  different  pictures  of  the 
life  and  teacliings  of  the  Lord.  Irenseus  at  the  close 
of  the  second  century  felt  it  to  be  as  essential  that 
there  should  be  four  gospels  as  that  there  should  be 
"  four  zones  of  the  world,  four  principal  winds,  and 
four  faces  of  the  cherubim "  (Against  Heresies 
III.  ii.  8). 

37.  Before  Irenseus,  however,  another  had  sought 
to  obviate  the  difficulty  of  having  four  records  which 
seem  at  some  points  to  disagree,  by  making  a  com- 
bination of  the  gospels,  to  which  he  gave  the  title 
"  Diatessaron."  Tatian,  the  author  of  this  work,  was 
converted  from  paganism  about  152  A.  D.,  and  prepared 
his  unified  gospel,  probably  for  the  use  of  the  Syrian 
churches,  sometime  after  172.  His  work  is  one  of  the 
treasures  of  the  early  Christian  literature  recovered  for 
us  within  the  last  quarter-century.  It  seems  to  have 
won  great  popularity  in  the  Syrian  churches,  having 
practically  displaced  the  canonical  gospels  for  nearly 
three  centuries,  when,  owing  to  its  supposed  heretical 
tendency,  it  was  suppressed  by  the  determined  effort 
of  the  church  authorities.  It  is  a  continuous  record  of 
Jesus'  ministry,  beginning  with  the  first  six  verses  of 
the  Gospel  of  John,  passing  then  to  the  early  chapters 


THE  HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS  39 

of  Luke.  It  closes  with  an  account  of  the  resurrec- 
tion interwoven  from  all  four  gospels,  concluding 
with  John  xxi.  25.  The  arrangement  follows  gener- 
ally the  order  of  Matthew,  additional  matter  from  the 
other  gospels  being  inserted  at  places  which  approved 
themselves  to  Tatian's  judgment.  Some  portions  — in 
particular  the  genealogies  of  Jesus  —  were  omitted 
altogether,  in  accordance  with  views  held  by  the 
compiler. 

38.  From  Tatian's  time  to  the  present  there  have 
been  repeated  attempts  to  construct  a  harmonious  rep- 
resentation of  events  and  teachings  in  the  ministry  of 
Jesus,  generally  by  setting  the  parallel  accounts  side 
by  side,  following  such  a  succession  of  events  as 
seemed  most  probable.  Our  evangelists  cared  little, 
if  they  thought  at  all,  about  the  requirements  of  strict 
biography,  and  they  have  left  us  records  not  easy  to 
arrange  on  any  one  chronological  scheme.  Concern- 
ing the  chief  events,  however,  the  gospels  agree.  All 
four  report,  for  instance,  the  beginning  of  the  work 
in  Galilee  (Matt.  iv.  12,  17;  Mark  i.  14,  15 ;  Luke  iv. 
14,  15;  John  iv.  43-45);  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  when  Jesus'  popularity  in  Galilee  passed  its 
climax  (Matt.  xiv.  13-23  ;  Mark  vi.  30-46 ;  Luke  ix. 
10-17 ;  John  vi.  1-15)  ;  the  departure  from  Galilee 
for  the  final  visit  to  Jerusalem  (Matt.  xix.  1,  2  ;  Mark 
X.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  51 ;  John  vii.  1-10)  ;  and  the  week 
of  suffering  and  victory  at  the  end  (Matt.  xxi.  1  to 
xxviii.  20 ;  Mark  xi.  1  to  xvi.  8  [20] ;  Luke  xix.  29 
to  xxiv.  53 ;  John  xii.  1  to  xxi.  25). 

39.  These  facts  are  enough  to  give  us  a  clear  and 
unified  impression  of  the  course  of  Jesus'  ministry. 
When,  however,  we  seek  to  fill  in  the  details  given 


40  THE  LITE   OF  JESUS 

in  the  different  gospels,  difficulties  at  once  arise. 
Thus,  first,  what  shall  be  done  with  the  long  section 
which  John  introduces  (i.  19  to  iv.  42)  before  Jesus' 
withdrawal  into  Galilee  ?  The  other  gospels  make 
that  withdrawal  the  beginning  of  his  public  work. 
A  second  difficulty  arises  from  the  unnamed  feast  of 
John  V.  1.  By  one  or  another  scholar  this  feast  has 
been  identified  with  almost  every  Jewish  festival 
known  to  us.  Another  problem  is  furnished  by  the 
long  section  in  Luke  which  is  so  nearly  peculiar  to 
his  gospel  (ix.  51  to  xviii.  14).  If  the  section  had  no 
parallels  in  the  other  gospels  we  might  easily  conclude 
that  it  all  belongs  to  a  time  subsequent  to  the  final 
departure  for  Jerusalem ;  but  it  contains  at  least  one 
incident  from  the  earlier  ministry  in  Galilee  (Luke  xi. 
14-36  ;  compare  Mark  iii.  19-30),  and  many  teachings 
of  Jesus  given  by  Matthew  in  an  earlier  connection 
appear  here  in  Luke.  Furthermore,  the  section  has  to 
be  adjusted  to  that  portion  of  the  Gospel  of  John 
which  deals  with  the  same  period  and  yet  reports  none 
of  the  same  details. 

40.  If  Mark  has  furnished  the  narrative  framework 
adopted  in  the  main  by  the  first  and  third  gospels,  the 
problem  of  the  order  of  events  in  Jesus'  life  becomes 
a  question  of  the  chronological  value  of  Mark,  and  of 
the  estimate  to  be  placed  on  the  narrative  of  John. 
If  the  fourth  gospel  is  held  to  be  of  apostolic  origin 
and  trustworthy,  the  task  of  the  harmonist  is  chiefly 
that  of  combining  these  two  records  of  Mark  and 
John.  The  testimony  of  the  Baptist,  with  which  the 
fourth  gospel  opens,  must  have  been  given  some  time 
after  he  had  baptized  Jesus,  and  the  ministry  which 
preceded  Jesus'  return  to  Galilee  (i.  19  to  iv.  42)  be- 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  41 

lono-s  to  a  period  ignored  by  the  other  gospels.  The 
first  three  gospels  contain  indications  that  Jesus  must 
have  visited  Judea  before  the  close  of  his  life.  They 
give  no  hint,  however,  of  the  time  or  circumstances 
of  such  earlier  Judean  labor.  In  giving  the  emphasis 
they  do  to  the  work  in  Galilee,  they  present  a  one- 
sided picture.  When,  therefore,  we  find  in  John  a 
narrative  of  work  in  Judea,  confirmed  by  hints  in  the 
other  gospels,  we  may  justly  assume  that  the  arrange- 
ment which  fills  out  the  ministry  of  Jesus  by  inserting 
at  the  proper  places  in  Mark's  record  the  events  found 
in  John  is  essentially  true. 

41.  The  consideration  of  the  one-sidedness  of  Mark's 
narrative  simplifies  the  problem  of  harmony,  but  it 
does  not  solve  all  of  the  perplexities.  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  much  matter,  some  of  it  narrative,  which 
Mark  has  not,  and  for  which  he  suggests  no  place. 
Where  shall  we  put,  for  instance,  the  cure  of  the 
centurion's  servant  (Matt.  viii.  5-13 ;  Luke  vii.  1-10),  or 
John  the  Baptist's  last  message  (Matt.  xi.  2-19;  Luke 
vii.  18-35)  ?  It  would  simplify  matters  if  we  could  take 
Luke's  statement  that  he  had  "  traced  the  course  of  all 
things  accurately  from  the  first"  (Luke  i.  3),  as  indi- 
cating that  he  had  arrived  at  exact  certainty  concern- 
ing the  order  of  events  of  Jesus'  life.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  his  statement  was  simply  a  claim  that 
he  had  carefully  gathered  material  for  a  record  of  the 
whole  life  of  Jesus,  from  the  annunciation  of  his  birth 
to  his  ascension.  While  we  may  believe  that  some 
trustworthy  tradition  led  him  to  give  the  place  he  has 
to  many  of  the  incidents  which  he  adds  to  Mark's 
story,  it  seems  imjDOSsible  to  follow  him  in  all  respects ; 
for  instance,  in  severing  the  account  of  the  blasi)hemy 


42  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

of  tlie  Pharisees  (xi.  14-36)  from  the  place  which  it 
holds  in  Mark  (iii.  19-30). 

42.  Still  more  micertaiiity  exists  concerning  the  his- 
toric connection  of  teachings  of  Jesus  to  which  Matthew 
and  Luke  give  different  settings;  for  example,  the 
Lord's  Prayer  (Matt.  vi.  9-15;  Luke  xi.  1-4),  and 
the  exhortations  against  anxiety  ( Matt.  vi.  25-34 ; 
Luke  xii.  22-31).  We  have  seen  that  much  of  the 
teaching  common  to  these  gospels  is  probably  derived 
from  the  collection  of  the  "  oracles  "  of  the  Lord  made 
by  the  apostle  Matthew.  Everything  that  we  can 
infer  concerning  such  a  collection  of  oracles  indicates 
that,  while  some  of  the  teachings  may  have  been  con- 
nected with  particular  historic  situations  (compare 
Luke  xi.  1),  many  would  altogether  lack  such  intro- 
ductory words.  A  later  example  of  what  such  a  col- 
lection may  have  been  has  come  to  light  recently  in 
the  so-called  "  Sayings  of  Jesus,"  discovered  in  Egypt 
and  published  in  1897.  In  these  the  occasion  for  the 
teaching  has  been  quite  lost ;  the  sole  interest  centres 
in  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  supposed  to  have  said  the 
things  recorded.  If  Matthew's  book  contained  such 
"logia"  or  "  oracles,"  it  is  probable  that  the  opiginal 
connection  in  which  most  of  them  were  spoken  was  a 
matter  of  no  concern  to  the  apostle,  and  consequently 
has  been  lost.  This  in  no  way  compromises  the  genu- 
ineness of  these  sayings  of  Jesus.  The  treatment  of 
Luke  ix.  51  to  xviii.  14  is  much  simplified  by  this  con- 
sideration. To  Luke's  industry  (i.  1-4)  we  owe  the 
preservation  of  some  events  and  very  many  teachings 
which  no  other  evangelist  has  recorded.  Some  of  this 
new  material  (for  instance,  vii.  11-17,  36-50)  he  has 
assigned   a  place   in  the   midst  of  Mark's  narrative. 


DOUBLETS  43 

Most  of  it,  however,  lie  has  gathered  together  in  what 
seems  to  be  a  sort  of  appendix,  which  he  has  inserted 
between  the  close  of  the  ministry  in  Galilee  and  the 
final  arrival  in  Judea.  For  many  of  the  teachings  it 
is  now  impossible  to  assign  a  time  or  place.  That 
this  is  so  will  cause  no  surprise  or  difficulty  if  we 
remember  that  in  the  earliest  days  the  report  of  what 
Jesus  said  and  did  circulated  in  the  form  of  oral  tradi- 
tion only.  It  was  the  knowledge  that  first-hand  wit- 
nesses were  passing  away  that  led  to  the  writing  of 
the  gospels.  During  the  period  of  oral  tradition  many 
teachings  of  the  Lord  were  doubtless  kept  clearly 
and  accurately  in  memory  after  the  historic  situa- 
tions which  led  to  their  first  utterance  were  quite 
forgotten. 

43.  This  fact  helps  to  explain  another  perplexity  in 
our  gospel  narratives.  A  comparison  of  the  two  ac- 
counts of  the  cure  of  the  centurion's  servant  reveals 
differences  of  detail  most  perplexing,  if  we  ask  for 
minute  agreement  in  records  of  the  same  events. 
When  we  see  that  of  two  accounts  evidently  re- 
porting the  same  incident,  one  can  say  that  the  cen- 
turion himself  sought  Jesu^  and  asked  the  cure  of  his 
servant  (Matt.  viii.  5,  8),  while  the  other  makes  him 
declare  himself  unworthy  to  come  in  person  to  the 
Lord  (Luke  vii.  7),  the  question  arises  whether  other 
accounts,  similar  in  the  main  but  differing  in  detail, 
should  not  be  identified  as  independent  records  of 
one  event.  Were  there  two  cleansings  of  the  temple 
(John  ii.  13-22 ;  Mark  xi.  15-19),  two  miraculous 
draughts  of  fishes  (Luke  v.  4-11;  John  xxi.  5-8), 
two  rejections  at  Nazareth  (jNIark  vi.  1-6  ;  Luke  iv. 
16-30),  two  parables  of  the  Leaven,  of  the  Mustard 


44  THE  LIFE   OF   JESUS 

Seed  (Matt.  xiii.  31-33  ;  Luke  xiii.  18-21),  and  of 
the  Lost  Sheep  (Matt,  xviii.  12-14;  Luke  xv.  4-7)? 
Such  similar  records  are  often  called  doublets,  and  the 
question  of  identity  or  distinctness  can  be  answered 
only  after  a  special  study  of  each  case.  It  is  important 
to  notice  that  a  given  teaching,  particularly  if  it  took 
the  form  of  an  illustration,  would  naturally  be  used 
by  Jesus  on  many  different  occasions.  When,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  find  two  accounts  of  specific  doings  of 
Jesus  similar  in  detail  it  is  needful  to  recognize  that 
definite  historic  situations  do  not  so  often  repeat 
themselves  as  do  occasions  for  similar  or  identical 
teachings. 

44.  All  these  considerations  show  that  while  the 
general  order  of  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  may  be 
determined  with  a  good  degree  of  probability,  we  must 
be  content  to  remain  uncertain  concerning  the  place 
to  be  given  to  many  incidents  and  to  more  teachings. 
Such  uncertainty  is  of  small  concern,  since  our  un- 
harmonized  gospels  have  not  failed  during  all  these 
centuries  to  produce  one  fair  picture,  to  the  total 
impression  of  which  each  teaching  and  deed  make 
definite  contribution  quite  independently  of  our  ability 
to  give  to  each  its  particular  place  in  relation  to  the 
whole.  The  degree  of  certainty  attainable  justifies, 
however,  a  continued  interest  in  the  old  study  of  har- 
mony, because  of  the  more  comprehensive  idea  it 
gives  of  the  ministry  depicted  in  the  partial  narratives 
of  our  several  gospels. 


IV 

THE   CHKOXOLOGY 

45.  The  length  of  the  public  ministr}^  of  Jesus  was 
one  of  the  earliest  questions  which  arose  in  the  study 
of  the  four  gospels.  In  the  second  and  third  centuries 
it  was  not  uncommon  to  find  the  answer  in  the  passage 
from  Isaiah  (Ixi.  1,  2),  which  Jesus  declared  was  ful- 
filled in  himself.  "  The  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord  " 
was  taken  to  indicate  that  the  ministry  covered  little 
more  than  a  year.  The  fact  that  the  first  three  gospels 
mention  but  one  Passover  (that  at  the  end),  and  but 
one  journey  to  Jerusalem,  seems  at  first  to  be  favorable 
to  this  conclusion,  and  to  make  peculiarly  significant 
the  care  taken  by  Luke  to  give  the  exact  date  for  the 
opening  of  Jesus'  ministry  (iii.  1,  2).  In  fact,  the 
second  century  Gnostics,  relying  apparently  on  Luke, 
assigned  both  the  ministry  and  death  of  Jesus  to  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Csesar,  —  an  interpretation 
which  may  have  given  rise  to  the  widely  spread,  early 
tradition,  found,  for  example,  in  Tertullian  (Ante- 
nicene  Fathers,  iii.  160),  which  placed  the  death  of 
Jesus  in  a.  d.  29,  during  the  consulship  -of  L.  Ru- 
bellius  Geminus  and  C.   Fufius  Geminus. 

46.  The  theory  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  ex!;ended 
over  but  little  more  than  one  year  is  beset,  however, 
by  difficulties  that  seem  insuperable.  The  first  is  pre- 
sented by  the  thre^  Passovers  distinctly  mentioned  in 


46  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

the  Gospel  of  John  (ii.  13;  vi.  4;  xii.  1).  The  last  of 
these  is  plainly  identical  with  the  one  named  in  the 
other  gospels.  The  second  gives  the  time  of  year  for 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  agrees  with  the 
mention  of  "the  green  grass"  in  the  account  of  Mark 
and  Matthew  (Mark  vi.  39;  Matt.  xiv.  19).  John's 
first  Passover  falls  in  a  section  which  demands  a  place 
before  Mark  i.  14  (compare  John  iii.  24).  Hence  it 
must  be  shown  that  this  first  Passover  is  chronologi- 
cally out  of  order  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  or  the  one 
year  ministry  advocated  by  the  second  century  Gnos- 
tics, by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  by  Origen,  and  of  late 
years  by  Keim  and  others,  is  seen  to  be  impossible. 
The  fact  that  at  this  Passover  Jesus  cleansed  the  tem- 
ple, and  that  the  other  gospels  assign  such  a  cleansing 
to  the  close  of  the  ministry,  suggests  the  possibility 
that  John  has  set  it  at  the  opening  of  his  narrative  for 
reasons  connected  with  his  argument.  This  interpre- 
tation falls,  however,  before  the  perfect  simplicity  of 
structure  of  John's  narrative.  The  transitions  from 
incident  to  incident  in  this  gospel  are  those  of  simple 
succession,  and  indicate,  on  the  writer's  part,  no  sus- 
picion that  he  was  contradicting  notions  concerning 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  familiar  to  his  contemporaries. 
Whatever  the  conclusion  reached  concerning  the  au- 
thorship of  the  gospel,  the  fact  that  it  gained  currency 
very  early  as  apostolic  would  seem  to  prove  that  its 
conception  of  the  length  of  Jesus'  ministry  was  not 
opposed  to  the  recognized  apostolic  testimony.  It  is 
safe  to  conclude,  therefore,  that  time  must  be  allowed 
in  Jesus'  ministry  for  at  least  three  Passover  seasons. 

47.   With  this  conclusion  most  modern  discussions 
of  the  question  rest,  and  it   is   possible  that  it  may 


THE  ORDER  OF  EVENTS  IN  MARK  47 

finally  win  common  consent.  The  order  of  Mark's  nar- 
rative, however,  challenges  it.  This  gospel  records 
near  the  beginning  (ii.  23)  a  controversy  with  the 
Pharisees  occasioned  by  the  fact  that  Jesus'  disciples 
plucked  and  ate  the  ripening  grain  as  they  passed  on 
a  Sabbath  day  through  the  fields.  As  Mark  places 
much  later  (vi.  30-34)  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand, which  occurred  at  a  Passover,  that  is  the  be- 
ginning of  the  harvest  (Lev.  xxiii.  5-11),  his  order 
suggests  the  necessity  of  including  two  harvest  sea- 
sons in  the  ministry  in  Galilee,  and  consequently  four 
Passovers  in  the  public  life  of  Jesus.  Two  considera- 
tions are  urged  against  this  conclusion.  (1)  Papias 
in  his  reference  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark  criticises  the 
order  of  the  gospel ;  (2)  Mark  ii.  1  to  iii.  6  contains 
a  group  of  five  conflicts  with  the  critics  of  Jesus, 
which  represents  a  massing  of  opposition  that  seems 
unlikely  at  the  outset  of  his  Galilean  work.  The  re- 
mark of  Papias  must  remain  obscure  until  his  stand- 
ard of  comparison  is  known.  Some  suggest  that  he 
knew  John's  order  and  preferred  it,  others  that  he 
agreed  with  that  adopted  by  Tatian  in  his  Diatessa- 
ron.  Mark  is  in  accord  with  neither  of  these.  No 
one,  however,  knows  what  order  Papias  preferred. 
The  early  conflict  group  does  appear  like  a  collec- 
tion drawn  from  different  parts  of  the  ministry.  Yet 
the  nucleus  of  the  group  —  the  cure  of  the  paralytic 
(ii.  1-12)  and  the  call  of  Levi  (ii.  13-17)  —  is  clearly 
in  its  right  place  in  Mark  (see  Holtzmann,  Hand- 
commentar,  I.  10).  The  question  about  fasting  (ii. 
18-22)  may  have  been  asked  much  later,  and  its  present 
place  may  be  due  to  association  in  tradition  with  the 
criticism  of  Jesus'  fellowship  with  publicans  (ii.  16). 


48  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

In  like  manner  the  cure  of  the  withered  hand  (iii.  1-6) 
may  have  become  artificially  grouped  with  the  inci- 
dent of  the  cornfields.  It  is  possible,  also,  that  both 
Sabbath  controversies  owe  their  early  place  in  the  gos- 
pel to  traditional  association  with  the  early  conflicts 
(ii.  1-17).  If  so,  the  plucking  of  the  grain  actually 
occurred  some  weeks  after  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  and  probably  after  the  controversy  about 
tradition  (vii.  1-23),  with  which,  according  to  Mark, 
Jesus'  activity  in  Galilee  practically  closed.  It  is  not 
clear,  however,  what  principle  of  association  drew  for- 
ward to  the  early  group  the  Sabbath  conflict,  and  left 
in  its  place  the  controversy  about  tradition.  It  is  thus 
possible  that  the  incident  of  the  cornfields  belongs  also 
to  the  early  nucleus  of  the  group ;  and  in  this  case  the 
longer  ministry,  including  four  Passovers,  must  be  ac- 
cepted. The  decision  of  the  question  is  not  of  vital 
importance,  but  it  affects  the  determination  of  the  se- 
quence of  events  in  Jesus'  life.  Whatever  the  explana- 
tion of  the  remark  of  Papias,  the  more  the  gospels  are 
studied  the  more  does  Mark's  order  of  events  com- 
mend itself  in  general  as  representing  the  probable 
fact.  Many  students  have  inferred  the  three  year 
ministry  from  the  Gospel  of  John  alone,  identifying 
the  unnamed  feast  in  John  v.  1  with  a  Passover.  But 
John's  allusion  to  that  feast  is  so  indefinite  that  the 
length  of  Jesus'  ministry  must  be  determined  quite 
independently  of  it. 

48.  So  long  a  ministry  as  three  years  presents  some 
difliculties,  for  all  that  is  told  us  in  the  four  gospels 
would  cover  but  a  small  fraction  of  this  time.  John's 
statement  (xx.  30)  that  he  omitted  many  things  from 
Jesus'  life  in  making  his  book  is  evidently  true  of  all 


THE   FIFTEENTH  YEAR  OF  TIBEEIUS  49 

the  evangelists,  and  long  gaps,  such  as  are  evident 
in  the  fourth  gospel,  must  be  assumed  in  the  other 
three.  Recalling  the  character  of  the  gospels  as  pic- 
tures of  Jesus  rather  than  narratives  of  his  life,  we 
may  easily  acknowledge  the  incompleteness  of  our 
record  of  the  three  years  of  ministry,  and  wonder  the 
more  at  the  vividness  of  impression  produced  with 
such  economy  of  material.  This  meagre ness  of  mate- 
rial is  not  decisive  for  the  shorter  rather  than  the 
longer  ministry,  for  it  is  evident  that  to  effect  such  a 
change  in  conviction  and  feeling  as  Jesus  wrought  in 
the  minds  of  the  ardent  Galileans  who  were  his  dis- 
ciples, required  time.  Three  years  are  better  suited 
to  effect  this  change  than  two. 

49.  Closely  related  to  the  question  of  the  length  of 
Jesus'  ministry  is  another:  Can  definite  dates  be  given 
for  the  chief  events  in  his  life  ?  For  the  year  of  the 
opening  of  his  public  activity  the  gospels  furnish  two 
independent  testimonies:  the  remark  of  the  Jews  on 
the  occasion  of  Jesus'  first  visit  to  Jerusalem,  "Forty 
and  six  years  was  this  temple  in  building  "  (John  ii. 
20),  and  Luke's  careful  dating  of  the  appearance  of 
John  the  Baptist,  "in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius 
Caesar  "  (iii.  1,  2).  John  ii.  20  leads  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  first  Passover  fell  in  the  spring  of  a.  d.  26 
or  27,  since  we  learn  from  Josephus  (Ant.  xv.  11.  1) 
that  Herod  began  to  rebuild  the  temple  in  the  eigli- 
teenth  year  of  his  reign,  which  closed  in  the  spring  of 
B.  c.  19.  Luke  iii.  1  gives  a  date  contradictory  to  the 
one  just  found,  if  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  is  to 
be  counted  from  the  death  of  his  predecessor,  for 
Augustus  died  August  19,  A.  d.  14.  Reckoned  from 
this  time  the  opening  of  John's  work  falls  in  the  year 

4 


50  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

A.  D.  28,  and  the  first  Passover  of  Jesus'  ministry 
could  not  be  earlier  than  the  spring  of  29.  This  is 
at  least  two  years  later  than  is  indicated  by  the  state- 
ment in  John.  The  remark  in  John  is,  however,  so 
incidental  and  so  lacking  in  significance  for  his  argu- 
ment that  its  definiteness  can  be  explained  only  as  due 
to  a  clear  historic  reminiscence ;  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  Luke  has  erred  in  the  date  given  by  him.  Al- 
though Augustus  did  not  die  until  a.  d.  14,  there  is 
evidence  that  Tiberius  was  associated  with  him  in 
authority  over  the  army  and  the  provinces  not  later 
than  January,  a.  d.  12.  One  who  lived  and  wrote  in 
the  reign  of  Titus  may  possibly  have  applied  to  the 
reign  of  Tiberius  a  mode  of  reckoning  customary  in 
the  case  of  Titus,  as  Professor  Ramsay  has  shown 
(Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem,  202).  If  this  is  the 
fact,  Luke  reckoned  from  the  co -regency  of  Tiberius ; 
hence  the  fifteenth  year  would  be  a.  d.  25  or  26, 
according  as  the  co-regency  began  before  or  after  the 
first  of  January,  a.  d.  12.  This  would  place  the  first 
Passover  of  Jesus'  ministry  in  the  spring  of  26  or  27, 
in  agreement  with  the  hint  found  in  John. 

50.  If  the  public  ministr}^  of  Jesus  began  with  the 
spring  of  26  or  27,  the  close  of  three  years  of  activity 
would  come  at  the  Passover  of  29  or  30.  The  former 
of  these  dates  agrees  with  the  early  Christian  tradition 
already  mentioned.  But  before  accepting  that  tradi- 
tional date  another  matter  must  be  considered.  Jesus 
was  crucified  on  the  Friday  at  the  opening  of  the  feast 
of  the  Passover.  Whether  it  was  the  day  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Passover  (14  Nisan)  or  the  day  following 
(15  Nisan),  is  not  essential  for  the  present  question. 
As  the  Jewish  month  began  with  the  first  appearance 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  CRUCIFIXION  51 

of  the  new  moon,  it  is  evident  that,  in  the  year  of 
Jesus'  death,  the  month  of  Nisan  must  have  begun  on 
a  day  that  would  make  the  14th  or  the  15th  fall  on 
Friday.  Now  it  can  be  shown  that  in  the  year  30  the 
14th  of  Nisan  was  Thursday  (April  6)  or  Friday  (iVpril 
7),  for  at  best  only  approximate  certainty  is  attainable. 
The  tradition  which  assigns  the  passion  to  29,  gener- 
ally names  March  25  as  the  day  of  the  month.  This 
date  is  impossible,  because  it  does  not  coincide  with  the 
full  moon  of  that  month.  The  choice  of  March  25  by 
a  late  tradition  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  it  was 
commonly  regarded  as  the  date  of  the  spring  equinox, 
the  turning  of  the  year  towards  its  renewing.  Mr. 
Turner  has  shown  (HastBD.  I.  415)  that  another 
date  found  in  an  early  document  cannot  be  so  ex- 
plained. Epiphanius  was  familiar  with  copies  of  the 
Acts  of  Pilate,  which  gave  March  18  as  the  date  of 
the  crucifixion;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  this  date 
coincides  with  the  full  moon,  and  also  falls  on  Friday. 
Such  a  combination  gives  unusual  weight  to  the  tra- 
dition, particularly  as  there  is  no  ready  way  to  account 
for  its  rise,  as  in  the  case  of  March  25.  From  this 
supplementary  tradition  the  year  29  gains  in  probabil- 
ity as  the  year  of  the  passion.  Without  attempting 
to  arrive  at  a  final  conclusion,  —  a  task  which  must  be 
left  for  chronological  specialists,  —  it  is  safe  to  assume 
that  Jesus  died  at  the  Passover  of  a.  d.  29  or  30. 

51.  Concluding  that  Jesus'  active  ministry  fell 
within  the  years  a.  d.  26  to  30,  is  it  possible  to  de- 
termine the  date  of  his  birth?  Four  hints  are  fur- 
nished by  the  gospels :  he  was  born  before  the  death  of 
Herod  (Matt.  ii.  1 ;  Luke  i.  5) ;  he  was  about  thirty 
years  of  age  at  his  baptism  (Luke  iii.   23);  he  was 


52  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

born  during  a  census  conducted  in  Judea  in  accord- 
ance with  the  decree  of  Augustus  at  a  time  when 
Quirinius  was  in  authority  in  Syria  (Luke  ii.  1,  2) ; 
after  his  birth  wise  men  from  the  East  were  led  to  visit 
him  by  observing  "his  star"  (Matt.  ii.  1,  2).  From 
these  facts  it  follows  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
placed  later  than  b.  c.  4,  since  Herod  died  about  the 
first  of  April  in  that  year  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  6.  4;  8. 
1,  4).  The  awkwardness  of  having  to  find  a  date 
Before  Christ  for  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  due  to  the  mis- 
calculation of  the  monk,  Dionysius  the  Little,  who  in 
the  sixth  century  introduced  our  modern  reckoning 
from  "the  year  of  our  Lord." 

52.  But  is  it  impossible  to  determine  the  time  of 
Jesus'  birth  more  exactly?  Luke  (ii.  1,  2)  offers 
what  seems  to  be  more  definite  information,  but  his 
reference  to  the  decree  of  Augustus  and  the  enrolment 
under  Quirinius  are  among  the  most  seriously  chal- 
lenged statements  in  the  gospels.  It  has  been  said 
(1)  that  history  knows  of  no  edict  of  Augustus  ordering 
a  general  enrolment  of  "the  world;  "  (2)  that  a  Roman 
census  could  not  have  been  taken  in  Palestine  before  the 
death  of  Herod;  (3)  that  if  such  an  enrolment  had 
been  taken  it  would  have  been  unnecessary  for  Joseph 
and  Mary  to  journey  from  Nazareth  to  Bethlehem; 
(4)  that  the  census  taken  when  Quirinius  was  governor 
of  Syria  is  definitely  assigned  by  Josephus  to  the  year 
after  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  a.  d.  6  (Ant.  xviii. 
1.  1;  see  also  Acts  v.  37);  (5)  that  if  Luke's  refer- 
ence to  this  census  as  the  "first"  be  appealed  to,  it 
must  be  replied  that  Quirinius  was  not  governor  of 
Syria  at  any  time  during  the  lifetime  of  Herod.  This 
array  of  difficulties  is  impressive,  and  has  persuaded 


THE  ENROLMENTS  OF  AUGUSTUS  53 

many  conservative  students  to  concede  that  in  his 
reference  to  the  census  Luke  has  fallen  into  error. 
Some  recent  discoveries  in  Egypt,  however,  have 
furnished  new  information  concerning  the  imperial 
administration  of  that  province.  Inferring  that  a 
policy  adopted  in  Egypt  may  have  prevailed  also  in 
Syria,  Professor  Ramsay  has  recently  put  forth  a 
strong  argument  for  Luke's  accuracy  in  respect  of  this 
census  (Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem,  95-248). 
That  argument  may  be  condensed  as  follows:  We 
have  evidence  of  a  system  of  Roman  enrolments  in 
Egypt  taken  every  fourteen  years,  and  already  traced 
back  to  the  time  of  Augustus,  the  earliest  document 
so  far  recovered  belonging,  apparently,  to  the  census 
of  A.  D.  20.  It  is  at  least  possible  that  this  system  of 
Egyptian  enrolments  may  have  been  part  of  an  im- 
perial policy,  of  which  all  other  trace  is  lost  except- 
ing the  statement  of  Luke.  It  is  significant  that  the 
date  of  the  census  referred  to  by  Josephus  (a.  d.  6) 
fits  exactly  the  fourteen-year  cycle  which  obtained 
in  Egypt.  If  the  census  of  a.  d.  6  was  preceded 
by  an  earlier  one  its  date  would  be  b.  c.  8;  that  is,  it 
would  be  actually  taken  in  b.  c.  7,  in  order  to  secure 
the  full  acts  for  b.  c.  8. 

53.  The  statement  of  Tertullian  (Against  Marcion, 
iv.  19)  that  a  census  had  been  taken  in  Ju.dea  under 
Augustus  by  Sentius  Saturninus,  who  was  governor  of 
Syria  about  9  to  7  b.  c,  certainly  comes  from  some 
source  independent  of  the  gospels,  and  tends  to  con- 
firm Luke's  account  of  a  census  before  the  death  of 
Herod.  That  a  Roman  census  might  have  been  taken 
in  Palestine  during  Herod's  life  is  seen  from  the  fact 
that  in  a.  d.  36  Vitellius,  the  governor  of  Syria,  had 


54  THE  LIEE  OF  JESUS 

to  send  Roman  forces  into  Cilicia  Traclisea  to  assist 
Archelaus,  the  king  of  that  country,  to  quell  a  revolt 
caused  by  native  resistance  to  a  census  taken  after  the 
Roman  fashion  (Tacitus,  Ann.  vi.  41).  Herod  would 
almost  certainly  resent  as  a  mark  of  subjection  the 
order  to  enrol  his  people ;  and  the  fact  that  he  was  in 
disfavor  with  Augustus  during  the  governorship  of 
Saturninus  (Josephus,  Ant.  xvi.  9.  1-3),  suggests  to 
Professor  Ramsay  that  he  may  have  sought  to  avoid 
obedience  to  the  imperial  will  in  the  matter  of  the 
census.  If  after  some  delay  Herod  was  forced  to 
obey,  the  enrolment  may  have  been  taken  in  the  year 
7-6.  Since  it  is  probable  that  the  Romans  would 
allow  Herod  to  give  the  census  as  distinctly  Jewish  a 
character  as  possible,  it  is  easy  to  credit  the  order  that 
all  Jews  should  be  registered,  so  far  as  possible,  in 
their  ancestral  homes.  Hence  the  journey  of  Joseph 
to  Bethlehem;  and  if  Mary  wished  to  have  her  child 
also  registered  as  from  David's  line,  her  removal  with 
Joseph  to  Bethlehem  is  explained.  Such  a  delay  in 
the  taking  of  the  census  would  have  postponed  it  until 
after  the  recall  of  Saturninus.  The  statement  of 
Tertullian  may  therefore  indicate  simply  that  he  knew 
that  a  census  was  taken  in  Syria  by  Saturninus. 

54.  The  successor  of  Saturninus  was  Varus,  who 
held  the  governorship  until  after  the  death  of  Herod. 
How  then  does  Luke  refer  to  the  enrolment  as  taken 
when  Quirinius  was  in  authority?  It  has  for  a  long 
time  been  known  that  this  man  was  in  Syria  before  he 
was  there  as  legate  of  the  emperor  in  A.  d.  6.  There 
seems  to  be  evidence  that  Quirinius  was  in  the  East 
about  the  year  b.  c.  6,  putting  down  a  rebellion  on  the 
borders  of  Cilicia,    a  district    joined  with  Syria  into 


QUIRINIUS   IN  SYRIA  55 

one  province  under  the  early  empire.  Varus  was  at 
this  time  governor,  but  Quirinius  might  easily  have 
been  looked  upon  as  representing  for  the  time  the 
power  of  the  Roman  arms.  If  Herod  was  forced  to 
yield  to  the  imperial  wish  by  the  presence  in  Syria  of 
this  renowned  captain,  the  statement  of  Luke  is  con- 
firmed, and  the  census  at  which  Jesus  was  born  was 
taken,  according  to  a  Jewish  fashion,  during  the  life 
of  Herod,  but  under  compulsion  of  Rome  exacted  by 
Quirinius,  while  he  was  in  command  of  the  Roman 
forces  in  the  province  of  Syria-Cilicia.  This  gives  as 
a  probable  date  for  the  birth  of  Jesus  B.  c.  6,  which 
accords  well  with  the  hints  previously  considered,  in- 
asmuch as  it  is  earlier  than  the  death  of  Herod,  and, 
if  born  in  B.  c.  6,  Jesus  would  have  been  thirty-two  at 
his  baptism  in  a.  d.  26. 

55.  The  account  given  in  Matthew  of  "the  star" 
which  drew  the  wise  men  to  Judea  gives  no  sure  help 
in  determining  the  date  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  but  it 
is  at  least  suggestive  that  in  the  spring  and  autumn  of 
B.  c.  7  there  occurred  a  remarkable  conjunction  of  the 
planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn.  This  was  first  noticed 
by  Kepler  in  consequence  of  a  similar  conjunction  ob- 
served by  him  in  a.  d.  1603.  Men  much  influenced 
by  astrology  must  have  been  impressed  by  such  a 
celestial  phenomenon,  but  that  it  furnishes  an  expla- 
nation of  the  star  of  the  wise  men  is  not  clear.  If  it 
does,  it  confirms  the  date  otherwise  probable  for  the 
nativity,  that  is,  not  far  from  b.  C.-6. 

56.  Can  we  go  further  and  determine  the  time  of 
year  or  the  month  and  day  of  the  nativity  ?     It  should 

.  be  borne  in  mind  that  our  Christmas  festival  was  not 
observed  earlier  than  the  fourth  century,  and  that  the 


56  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

evidence  is  well-nigh  conclusive  that  December  25th 
was  finally  selected  for  the  Nativity  in  order  to  hallow 
a  much  earlier  and  widely  spread  pagan  festival  coin- 
cident with  the  winter  solstice.  If  anything  exists  to 
suggest  the  time  of  year  it  is  Luke's  mention  of  "shep- 
herds in  the  field  keeping  watch  by  night  over  their 
flock "  (ii.  8).  This  seems  to  indicate  that  it  must 
have  been  the  summer  season.  In  winter  the  flocks 
would  be  folded,  not  pastured,  by  night. 

57.  It  therefore  seems  probable  that  Jesus  was 
born  in  the  summer  of  b.  c.  6 ;  that  he  was  baptized  in 
A.  D.  26 ;  that  the  first  Passover  of  his  ministry  was  in 
the  spring  of  26  or  27 ;  and  that  he  was  crucified  in  the 
spring  of  29  or  30. 


THE  EAKLY    YEAES   OF   JESUS 

Matt.  i.  1  to  ii.  23;  Luke  i.  5  to  ii.  52  ;  iii.  23-38 

58.  It  is  surprising  that  within  a  century  of  the  life 
of  the  apostles,  Christian  imagination  could  have  so 
completely  mistaken  the  real  greatness  of  Jesus  as  to 
let  its  thirst  for  wonder  fill  his  early  years  with  scenes 
in  which  his  conduct  is  as  unlovely  as  it  is  shocking. 
That  he  who  in  manhood  was  "  holy,  harmless,  unde- 
filed,  separate  from  sinners  "  (Heb.  vii.  26),  could  in 
youth,  in  a  fit  of  ill-temper,  strike  a  companion  with 
death  and  then  meet  remonstrance  by  cursing  his  ac- 
cusers with  blindness  ( Gospel  of  Thomas,  4,  5) ;  that 
he  could  mock  liis  teachers  and  spitefully  resent  their 
control  (Pseudo-Matthew,  30,  31);  that  it  could  be 
thought  worthy  of  him  to  exhibit  his  superiority  to 
common  human  conditions  by  carrying  water  in  his 
mantle  when  his  pitcher  had  been  broken  (same,  33),  or 
by  making  clay  birds  in  play  on  the  Sabbath  and  caus- 
ing them  to  fly  when  he  was  rebuked  for  naughtiness 
(same,  27) ;  —  these  and  many  like  legends  exhibit  in- 
credible blindness  to  the  real  glory  of  the  Lord.  Yet 
such  things  abound  in  the  early  attempts  of  the  pious 
imagination  to  write  the  story  of  the  youth  of  Jesus, 
and  the  account  of  the  nativity  and  its  antecedents 
fares  as  ill,  being  pitifully  trivial  where  it  is  not 
revolting. 


58  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

59.  How  completely  foreign  all  this  is  to  the  apos- 
tolic thought  and  feeling  is  clear  when  we  notice  that 
excepting  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
the  New  Testament  tells  us  nothing  whatever  of  the 
years  which  preceded  John  the  Baptist's  ministry  in 
the  wilderness.  The  gospels  are  books  of  testimony 
to  what  men  had  seen  and  heard  (John  i.  14) ;  and 
the  epistles  are  practical  interpretations  of  the  same 
in  its  bearing  on  religious  life  and  hope.  The  apostles 
found  no  difficulty  in  recognizing  the  divinity  and 
sinlessness  of  their  Lord  without  inquiring  how  he 
came  into  the  world  or  how  he  spent  his  early  years ; 
it  was  what  he  showed  himself  to  be,  not  how  he  came 
to  be,  that  formed  their  conception  of  him.  Yet  the 
early  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  should  not  be 
classed  with  the  later  legends.  Notwithstanding  the 
attempts  of  Keim  to  associate  the  narratives  of  the  in- 
fancy in  the  canonical  and  apocryphal  gospels,  a  great 
gulf  separates  them :  on  the  one  side  there  is  a  reverent 
and  beautiful  reserve,  on  the  other  indelicate,  unlovely, 
and  trivial  audacity. 

60.  The  gospel  narratives  have,  however,  perplexi- 
ties of  their  own,  for  the  two  accounts  agree  only  in 
the  main  features,  —  the  miraculous  birth  in  Bethlehem 
in  the  days  of  Herod,  Mary  being  the  mother  and 
Joseph  the  foster-father,  and  Nazareth  the  subsequent 
residence.  In  further  details  they  are  quite  different, 
and  at  first  sight  seem  contradictory.  Moreover,  while 
Matthew  sheds  a  halo  of  glory  over  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
Luke  draws  a  picture  of  humble  circumstances  and 
obscurity.  These  differences,  taken  with  the  silence 
of  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  concerning  a  mirac- 
ulous birth,  constitute  a  real  difficulty.     To  many  it 


THE  MIRACULOUS  BIRTH  59 

seems  strange  that  the  disciples  and  the  brethren  of 
Jesus  did  not  refer  to  these  tilings  if  tliey  knew  them 
to  be  true.  But  it  must  not  be  overloolved  that  any 
familiar  reference  to  the  circumstances  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  which  are  narrated  in  the  gospels  would  have  in- 
vited from  the  Jews  simply  a  challenge  of  the  honor  of 
his  home.  Moreover,  as  the  knowledge  of  these  won- 
ders did  not  keep  Mary  from  misunderstanding  her  son 
(Luke  ii.  19,  51 ;  compare  Mark  iii.  21,  31-35),  the 
publication  of  them  could  hardly  have  helped  greatly 
the  belief  of  others.  The  fact  that  Mary  was  so  per- 
plexed by  the  course  of  Jesus  in  his  ministry  makes 
it  probable  that  even  until  quite  late  in  her  life  she 
"kept  these  things  and  pondered  them  in  her  heart." 

61.  No  parts  of  the  New  Testament  are  challenged 
so  widely  and  so  confidently  as  these  narratives  of  the 
infancy.  But  if  they  are  not  to  be  credited  with  essen- 
tial truth  it  is  necessary  to  show  v/hat  ideas  cherished 
in  the  apostolic  church  could  have  led  to  their  inven- 
tion. That  John  and  Paul  maintain  the  divinity  of 
their  Lord,  yet  give  no  hint  that  this  involved  a 
miraculous  birth,  shows  that  these  stories  are  no  nec- 
essary outgrowth  of  that  doctrine.  The  early  Chris- 
tians whether  Jewish  or  Gentile  would  not  naturally 
choose,  to  give  pictorial  form  to  their  belief  in  their 
Lord's  divinity  by  the  story  of  an  incarnation.  Tlie 
heathen  myths  concerning  sons  of  the  gods  were  in  all 
their  associations  revolting  to  Christian  feeling,  and, 
while  the  Jewish  mind  was  ready  to  see  divine  influ- 
ence at  work  in  the  birth  of  great  men  in  Israel  (as 
Isaac,  and  Samson,  and  Samuel),  the  whole  tendency 
of  later  Judaism  was  hostile  to  any  such  idea  as  actual 
incarnation.     Some    would    explain  the   story  of  the 


60  THE  LIFE   OE  JESUS 

miraculous  birth  as  a  conclusion  drawn  by  the  Christian 
consciousness  from  the  doctrine  of  the  sinlessness  of 
Jesus.  Yet  neither  Paul  nor  John,  who  are  both  clear 
concerning  the  doctrine,  give  any  idea  that  a  miracu- 
lous birth  Avas  essential  for  a  sinless  being.  Some 
appeal  to  the  eagerness  of  the  early  Christians  to 
exalt  the  virginity  of  Mary.  This  is  certainly  the 
animus  of  many  apocryphal  legends.  But  the  feeling 
is  as  foreign  to  Jewish  sentiment  and  New  Testament 
teaching  as  it  is  contradictory  to  the  evidence  in 
the  gospels  that  Mary  had  other  children  born  after 
Jesus. 

62.  Moreover,  the  songs  of  Mary  (Luke  i.  46-55)  and 
Zachariah  (Luke  i.  68-79)  bear  in  themselves  the  evi- 
dence of  origin  before  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  had 
transformed  the  Christian  idea  of  the  Messiah.  That 
transformed  idea  abounds  in  the  Epistles  and  the  Acts, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  these  songs  (if  they 
were  later  inventions)  could  have  been  left  free  of  any 
trace  of  specifically  Christian  ideas.  A  Jewish  Chris- 
tian would  almost  certainly  have  made  them  more  Chris- 
tian than  they  are ;  a  Gentile  Christian  could  not  have 
made  them  so  strongly  and  naturally  Jewish  as  they  are  ; 
while  a  non-Christian  Jew  would  never  have  invented 
them.  Taken  with  the  evidence  in  Ignatius  (Ad  Eph. 
xviii.,  xix.)  of  the  very  early  currency  of  the  belief  in 
a  miraculous  birth,  they  confirm  the  impression  that  it 
is  easier  to  accept  the  evidence  offered  for  the  miracle 
than  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  stories  as  legends. 
The  idea  of  a  miraculous  birth  is  very  foreign  to 
modern  thought ;  it  becomes  credible  only  as  the  tran- 
scendent nature  of  Jesus  is  recognized  on  other  grounds. 
It  may  not  be  said  that  the  incarnation  required  a 


THE  CHILDHOOD   OF  JESUS  61 

miraculous  conception,  yet  it  may  be  acknowledged 
that  a  miraculous  concej)tion  is  a  most  suitable  method 
for  a  divine  incarnation. 

63.  These  gospel  stories  are  chiefly  significant  for  us 
in  that  they  show  that  he  in  whom  his  disciples  came 
to  recognize  a  divine  nature  began  his  earthly  life  in 
the  utter  helplessness  and  dependence  of  infancy,  and 
grew  through  boyhood  and  youth  to  manhood  with 
such  naturalness  that  his  neighbors,  dull  concerning 
the  things  of  the  spirit,  could  not  credit  his  exalted 
claims.  He  is  shown  as  one  in  all  points  like  unto 
his  brethren  (Heb.  ii.  17).  Two  statements  in  Luke 
(ii.  40,  52)  describe  the  growth  of  the  divine  child 
as  simply  as  that  of  his  forerunner  (Luke  i.  80),  or 
that  of  the  prophet  of  old  (L  Sam.  ii.  26).  The  clear 
impression  of  these  statements  is  that  Jesus  had  a  nor- 
mal growth  from  infancy  to  manhood,  while  the  whole 
course  of  the  later  life  as  set  before  us  in  the  gospels 
confirms  the  scripture  doctrine  that  his  normal  growth 
was  free  from  sin  (Heb.  iv.  15). 

64.  The  knowledge  of  the  probable  conditions  of 
his  cliildhood  is  as  satisfying  as  the  apocryphal  stories 
are  revolting.  The  lofty  Jewish  conception  of  home 
and  its  relations  is  worthy  of  Jesus.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  home  in  Nazareth  were  humble  (Matt, 
xiii.  35;  Luke  ii.  24  ;  compare  Lev.  xii.  8).  Probably 
the  house  was  not  unlike  those  seen  to-day,  of  but  one 
room,  or  at  most  two  or  three,  —  the  tools  of  trade 
mingling  with  the  meagre  furnishings  for  home-life. 
We  should  not  think  it  a  home  of  penury ;  doubtless 
the  circumstances  of  Joseph  were  like  those  of  his 
neighbors.  In  one  respect  this  home  was  rich.  The 
wife  and  mother  had  an  exalted  place  in  the  Jewish 


62  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

life,  notwithstanding  the  trivial  opinions  of  some  super- 
cilious rabbis ;  and  what  the  gospel  tells  of  the  chivalry 
of  Joseph  renders  it  certain  that  love  reigned  in  his 
home,  making  it  fit  for  the  growth  of  the  holy  child. 

65.  Religion  held  sway  in  all  the  phases  of  Jewish 
life.  With  some  it  was  a  religion  of  ceremony,  —  of 
prayers  and  fastings,  tithes  and  boastful  alms,  fringes 
and  phylacteries.  But  Joseph  and  Mary  belonged  to 
the  simpler  folk,  v/ho,  while  they  reverenced  the  scribes 
as  teachers,  knew  not  enough  of  their  subtlety  to  have 
substituted  barren  rites  for  sincere  love  for  the  God  of 
their  fathers  and  childlike  trust  in  his  mercy.  Jesus 
knew  not  only  home  life  at  its  fairest,  but  religion  at 
its  best.  A  father's  most  sacred  duty  was  the  teach- 
ing of  his  child  in  the  religion  of  his  people  (Deut.  vi. 
4-9),  and  then,  as  ever  since,  the  son  learned  at  his 
mother's  side  to  know  and  love  her  God,  to  pray  to 
him,  and  to  know  the  scriptures.  No  story  more 
thrilling  and  full  of  interest,  no  prospect  more  rich 
and  full  of  glowing  hope,  could  be  found  to  satisfy  the 
child's  spirit  of  wonder  than  the  story  of  Israel's  past 
and  God's  promises  for  the  future.  Religious  culture 
was  not  confined  to  the  home,  however.  The  temple 
at  Jerusalem  was  the  ideal  centre  of  religious  life  for 
this  Nazareth  household  (Luke  ii.  41)  as  for  all  the 
people,  yet  practically  worship  and  instruction  were 
cultivated  chiefly  by  the  synagogue  (Luke  iv.  16) ; 
there  God  was  present  in  his  Holy  Word.  Week  after 
week  the  boy  Jesus  heard  the  scripture  in  its  original 
Hebrew  form,  followed  by  translation  into  Aramaic, 
and  received  instruction  from  it  for  daily  conduct.  The 
synagogue  probably  influenced  the  boy's  intellectual 
life  even  more  directly.     In  the  time  of  Jesus  schools 


THE   GEOWTH  OF  JESUS  63 

had  been  established  in  all  the  important  towns,  and 
were  apparently  under  the  control  of  the  synagogue. 
To  such  a  school  he  may  have  been  sent  from  about 
six  years  of  age  to  be  taught  the  scriptures  (compare 
II.  Tim.  iii.  15),  together  with  the  reading  (Luke  iv. 
16-19),  and  perhaps  the  writing,  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. Of  his  school  experience  we  know  nothing 
beyond  the  fact  that  he  grew  in  "  wisdom  and  in  stature 
and  in  favor  with  God  and  man  "  (Luke  ii.  52),  —  a 
sufficient  contradiction  of  the  repulsive  legends  of  the 
apocryphal  gospels. 

66,  The  physical  growth  incident  to  Jesus'  develop- 
ment from  boyhood  to  manhood  is  a  familiar  thought. 
The  intellectual  unfolding  which  belongs  to  this  de- 
velopment is  readily  recognized.  Not  so  commonly 
acknowledged,  but  none  the  less  clearly  essential  to 
the  gospel  picture,  is  the  gradual  unfolding  of  the 
child's  moral  life  under  circumstances  and  stimulus 
similar  to  those  with  which  other  children  meet  (Heb. 
iv.  15).  The  man  Jesus  was  known  as  the  carpenter 
(Matt.  xiii.  55).  The  learning  of  such  a  trade  would 
contribute  much  to  the  boy's  mastery  of  his  own 
powers.  Far  more  discipline  would  come  from  his 
fellowship  with  brothers  and  sisters  who  did  not 
understand  his  ways  nor  appreciate  the  deepest  reali- 
ties of  his  life.  Without  robbing  boyhood  dnjs  of  their 
naturalness  and  reality,  we  may  be  sure  that  long 
before  Jesus  knew  how  and  why  he  differed  from  his 
fellows  he  felt  more  or  less  clearly  that  they  were  not 
like  him.  The  resulting  sense  of  isolation  was  a  school 
for  self-mastery,  lest  isolation  foster  any  such  pride  or 
unloveliness  as  that  with  which  later  legend  dared  to 
stain  the  picture  of  the  Lord's  youth.    Four  brothers  of 


64  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Jesus  are  named  by  Mark  (vi.  3),  —  James,  and  Joses, 
and  Judas,  and  Simon, — the  gospel  adds  also  that 
he  had  sisters  living  at  a  later  time  in  Nazareth. 
They  were  all  subject  with  him  to  the  same  home 
influences,  and  apparently  were  not  unresponsive  to 
them.  The  similarity  of  thought  and  feeling  between 
the  sermon  on  the  mount  and  the  Epistle  of  James  is 
not  readily  explained  by  the  influence  of  master  over 
disciple,  since  the  days  of  James's  discipleship  began 
after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  In  any  case  there  is 
no  reason  to  think  that  the  companions  of  Jesus'  home 
were  uncommonly  irritating  or  in  any  way  irreligious, 
only  Jesus  was  not  altogether  like  them  (John  vii.  5), 
and  the  fact  of  difference  was  a  moral  discipline, 
which  among  other  things  led  to  that  moral  growth  by 
which  innocence  passed  into  positive  goodness.  If  the 
home  was  such  a  school  of  discipline,  its  neighbors, 
less  earnest  and  less  favored  with  spiritual  training, 
furnished  more  abundant  occasion  for  self-mastery  and 
growth.  The  very  fact  that  in  his  later  years  Jesus 
was  no  desert  preacher,  like  John,  but  social,  and 
socially  sought  for,  indicates  that  he  did  not  win  his 
manhood's  perfection  in  solitude,  but  in  fellowship 
with  common  life  and  in  victory  over  the  trials  and 
temptations  incident  to  it  (Heb.  ii.  17,  18). 

67.  Yet  he  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  life 
which  is  in  secret  (Matt.  vi.  1-18).  He  who  in  his 
later  years  was  a  man  of  much  praj^er,  who  began 
(Luke  iii.  21)  and  closed  (Luke  xxiii.  46)  his  public 
life  with  prayer,  as  a  boy  was  certainly  familiar  not 
only  with  the  prayers  of  home  and  synagogue,  but  also 
with  quiet,  personal  resort  to  the  presence  of  God.  It 
would  be  unjust  to  think  of  any  abnormal  religious 


THE  VIEW  FROM  NAZARETH  65 

precocity.  Jesus  was  the  best  example  the  world  has 
seen  of  perfect  spiritual  health,  but  we  must  believe 
that  he  came  early  to  know  God  and  to  live  much 
with  him. 

68.  It  is  instructive  in  connection  with  this  in- 
wardness of  Jesus'  life  to  recall  the  rich  familiarity 
with  the  whole  world  of  nature  which  appears  in  his 
parables  and  other  teachings.  The  prospect  which 
met  his  eye  if  he  sought  escape  from  the  distractions 
of  home  and  village  life,  has  been  described  by  Renan : 
"  The  view  from  the  town  is  limited  ;  but  if  we  ascend 
a  little  to  the  plateau  swept  by  a  perpetual  breeze, 
which  stands  above  the  highest  houses,  the  landscape 
is  magnificent.  On  the  west  stretch  the  fine  outlines 
of  Carmel,  terminating  in  an  abrupt  spur  which  seems 
to  run  down  sheer  to  the  sea.  Next,  one  sees  the 
double  summit  which  towers  above  Megiddo ;  the 
mountains  of  the  country  of  Shechem,  with  their 
holy  places  of  the  patriarchal  period;  the  hills  of 
Gilboa,  the  small  picturesque  group  to  which  is  at- 
tached the  graceful  or  terrible  recollections  of  Shunem 
and  of  Endor ;  and  Tabor,  with  its  beautiful  rounded 
form,  which  antiquity  compared  to  a  bosom.  Through 
a  gap  between  the  mountains  of  Shunem  and  Tabor 
are  visible  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the  high 
plains  of  Perea,  which  form  a  continuous  line  from 
the  eastern  side.  On  the  north,  the  mountains  of 
Safed,  stretching  towards  the  sea,  conceal  St.  Jean 
d'Acre,  but  leaA^e  the  Gulf  of  Khaifa  in  sight.  Such 
was  the  horizon  of  Jesus.  This  enchanted  circle, 
cradle  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  for  years  his  world. 
Indeed,  during  his  whole  life  he  went  but  little  beyond 
the   familiar  bounds   of  his  childhood.     For  yonder, 


QQ  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

northwards,  one  can  almost  see,  on  the  flank  of 
Hermon,  Caesarea-Philippi,  his  farthest  point  of  ad- 
vance into  the  Gentile  world;  and  to  the  south  the 
less  smiling  aspect  of  these  Samaritan  hills  foreshadows 
the  dreariness  of  Judea  beyond,  parched  as  by  a  burn- 
ing wind  of  desolation  and  death."  In  the  midst  of 
such  scenes  we  are  to  understand  that,  with  the  physi- 
cal growth,  and  opening  of  mind,  and  moral  discipline 
wliich  filled  the  early  years  of  Jesus,  there  came  also 
the  gradual  spiritual  unfolding  in  which  the  boy  rose 
step  by  step  to  the  fuller  knowledge  of  God  and 
himself. 

69.  That  unfolding  is  pictured  in  an  early  stage  in 
the  story  given  us  from  the  youth  of  Jesus.  It  was 
customary  for  a  Jewish  boy  not  long  after  passing  his 
twelfth  year  to  come  under  full  adult  obligation  to 
the  law.  The  visit  to  Jerusalem  was  probably  in 
preparation  for  such  assumption  of  obligation  by  Jesus. 
All  his  earlier  training  had  filled  his  mind  with  the 
sacredness  of  the  Holy  City  and  the  glory  of  the 
temple.  It  is  easy  to  feel  with  what  joy  he  would 
first  look  upon  Zion  from  the  shoulder  of  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  as  he  came  over  it  on  his  journey  from 
Galilee  ;  to  conceive  how  the  temple  and  the  ritual 
would  fill  him  with  awe  in  his  readiness  not  to  criti- 
cise, but  to  idealize  everything  he  saw,  and  to  think 
only  of  the  significance  given  by  it  all  to  the  scripture  ; 
to  imagine  how  eagerly  he  would  talk  in  the  temple 
court  with  the  learned  men  of  his  people  about  the 
law  and  the  promises  with  which  in  home  and  school 
his  youth  had  been  made  familiar.  Nor  is  it  difficult 
to  appreciate  his  surprise,  when  Joseph  and  Mary, 
only  after  long  searching  for  him,  at  last  found  him 


THE  CARPENTER  AT  NAZARETH        67 

in  the  temple,  for  he  felt  that  it  was  the  most  natural 
place  in  which  he  could  be  found.  In  his  wondering 
question  to  Mary,  '^  Did  not  you  know  that  I  must 
be  in  my  Father's  house  ?  "  (Luke  ii.  49),  there  is  a 
premonition  of  his  later  consciousness  of  peculiarly 
intimate  relation  to  God.  The  question  was,  how- 
ever, a  sincere  inquiry.  It  was  no  precocious  rebuke 
of  Mary's  anxiety.  The  knowledge  of  himself  as 
Son  of  God  was  only  dawning  within  him,  and  was  not 
yet  full  and  clear.  This  is  shown  by  his  immediate 
obedience  and  liis  subjection  to  his  parents  in  Nazareth 
through  many  years.  It  is  safe,  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  acts  and  words  of  Jesus,  to  banish  utterly  as 
inconceivable  anything  that  savors  of  the  theatrical. 
We  must  believe  that  he  was  always  true  to  himself, 
and  that  the  subjection  which  he  rendered  to  Joseph 
and  Mary  sprang  from  a  real  sense  of  childhood's 
dependence,  and  was  not  a  show  of  obedience  for  any 
edifying  end  however  high. 

70.  That  question  "  Did  not  you  know  ? "  is  the 
only  hint  we  possess  of  Jesus'  inner  life  before  John's 
call  to  repentance  rang  through  the  land.  Meanwhile 
the  carpenter's  son  became  himself  the  carpenter. 
Joseph  seems  to  have  died  before  the  opening  of 
Jesus'  ministry.  For  Jesus  as  the  eldest  son,  this 
death  made  those  years  far  other  than  a  time  of 
spiritual  retreat ;  responsibility  for  the  home  and  the 
pressing  duties  of  trade  must  have  filled  most  of  the 
hours  of  his  days.  This  is  a  welcome  thought  to  our 
healthiest  sentiment,  and  true  also  to  the  earliest 
Christian  feeling  (Heb.  iv.  15).  John  the  Baptist 
had  his  training  in  the  wilderness,  but  Jesus  came 
from   familiar   intercourse  with   men,  was  welcomed 


68  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

in  their  homes  (John  ii.  2),  knew  their  life  in  its 
homely  ongoing,  and  was  the  friend  of  all  sorts  and 
conditions  of  men.  After  that  visit  to  Jerusalem,  a 
few  more  years  may  have  been  spent  in  school,  for, 
whether  from  school  instruction,  or  synagogue  preach- 
ing, or  simple  daily  experience,  the  young  man  came 
to  know  the  traditions  of  the  elders  and  also  to  know 
that  observance  of  them  is  a  mockery  of  the  righteous- 
ness which  God  requires.  Yet  he  seems  to  have  felt 
so  fully  in  harmony  with  God  as  to  be  conscious  of 
nothing  new  in  the  fresh  and  vital  conceptions  of  right- 
eousness which  he  found  in  the  law  and  prophets. 
We  may  be  certain  that  much  of  his  thought  was 
given  to  Israel's  hope  of  redemption,  and  that  with  the 
prophets  of  old  and  the  singer  much  nearer  his  own 
day  (Ps.  of  Sol.  xvii.  23),  he  longed  that  God,  accord- 
ing to  his  promise,  would  raise  up  unto  his  people, 
their  King,  the  Son  of  David. 

71.  He  must  also  have  read  often  from  that  other 
book  open  before  him  as  he  walked  upon  the  hills  of 
Nazareth.  The  beauty  of  the  grass  and  of  the  lilies  was 
surely  not  a  new  discovery  to  him  after  he  began  to 
preach  the  coming  kingdom,  nor  is  it  likely  that  he 
waited  until  after  his  baptism  to  form  his  habit  of  spend- 
ing the  night  in  prayer  upon  the  mountain.  We  may 
be  equally  sure  that  he  did  not  first  learn  to  love  men 
and  women  and  long  for  their  good  after  he  received 
the  call,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  son  "  (Mark  i.  11).  He 
who  in  later  life  read  hearts  clearly  (John  ii.  25) 
doubtless  gained  that  skill,  as  well  as  the  knowledge 
of  human  sin  and  need,  early  in  his  intercourse  with 
his  friends  and  neighbors  in  Nazareth ;  while  a  clear 
conviction  that  God's  kingdom  consists  in  his  sover- 


THE  YEARS  OF   SILENCE  69 

eignty  over  loyal  hearts  must  have  filled  much  of  his 
thought  about  the  promised  good  which  God  would 
bring  to  Israel  in  due  time.  Thus  we  may  think 
that  in  quietness  and  homely  industry,  in  secret  life 
with  God  and  open  love  for  men,  in  study  of  history 
and  prophecy,  in  longing  for  the  actual  sway  of  God 
in  human  life,  Jesus  lived  his  life,  did  his  work,  and 
grew  in  ''wisdom  and  in  stature  and  in  favor  with 
God  and  man  "  (Luke  ii.  52). 


VI 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

Matt.  iii.  1-17;  iv.  ]2;  xiv.  1-12;  Mark  i.  1-14;  vi.  14-29  ; 
Luke  i.  5-25,  57-80;  iii.  1-22;  ix.  7-9;  John  i.  19-37; 
iii.  22-30. 

72.  The  first  reappearance  of  Jesus  in  the  gospel 
story,  after  the  temple  scene  in  his  twelfth  year,  is  on 
the  banks  of  the  Jordan  seeking  baptism  from  the 
new  prophet.  One  of  the  silent  evidences  of  the 
greatness  of  Jesus  is  the  fact  that  so  great  a  character 
as  John  the  Baptist  stands  in  our  thought  simply  as 
accessory  to  his  life.  For  that  the  prophet  of  the 
wilderness  was  great  has  been  the  opinion  of  all  who 
have  been  willing  to  seek  him  in  his  retirement.  One 
reason  for  the  common  neglect  of  John  is  doubtless 
the  meagreness  of  information  about  him.  But  though 
details  are  few,  the  picture  of  him  is  drawn  in  clearest 
lines :  a  rugged  son  of  the  wilderness  scorning  the 
gentler  things  of  life,  threatening  his  people  with 
coming  wrath  and  calling  to  repentance  while  yet 
there  was  time;  a  preacher  of  practical  righteousness 
heeded  by  publicans  and  harlots  but  scorned  by  the 
elders  of  his  people;  a  bold  and  fearless  spirit,  yet 
subdued  in  the  presence  of  another  who  did  not 
strive,  nor  cry,  nor  cause  liis  voice  to  be  heard  in  the 
streets.     When  the  people  thought  to   find  in  John 


TESTBIONY  OF  JOSEPHUS  71 

the  promised  Messiah,  with  unparalleled  self-efface- 
ment he  pointed  them  to  his  rival  and  rejoiced  in  that 
rival's  growing  success.  Side  by  side  they  worked 
for  a  time ;  then  the  picture  fails,  but  for  a  hint  of  a 
royal  audience,  with  a  fearless  rebuke  of  royal  disgrace 
and  sin ;  a  prison  life,  with  its  pathetic  shaking  of 
confidence  in  the  early  certainties ;  a  long  and  forced 
inaction,  and  the  question  put  by  a  wavering  faith, 
with  its  patient  and  affectionate  reply;  then  a  lewd 
orgy,  a  king's  oath,  a  girl's  demands,  a  martjT's  re- 
lease, the  disciples'  lamentation  and  their  report  to 
that  other  who,  though  seeming  a  rival,  was  known 
to  appreciate  best  the  greatness  of  this  prophet.  Such 
is  the  picture  in  the  gospels. 

73.  John,  unlike  his  greater  successor,  has  a  highly 
appreciative  notice  from  Josephus  :  "  Now  some  of  the 
Jews  thought  that  the  destruction  of  Herod's  army  came 
from  God,  and  that  very  justly,  as  a  punishment  for 
what  he  did  against  John,  who  was  called  the  Baptist. 
For  Herod  had  had  him  put  to  death  though  he  was 
a  good  man,  and  commanded  the  Jews  to  exercise 
virtue,  both  as  to  justice  towards  one  another,  and 
piety  towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism;  for 
baptism  would  be  acceptable  to  God,  if  they  made  use 
of  it  not  in  order  to  expiate  some  sin,  but  for  tlie 
purification  of  the  body,  provided  that  the  soul  was 
thoroughly  purified  beforehand  by  righteousness.  Now, 
as  many  flocked  to  him,  for  they  were  greatly  moved 
by  hearing  his  words,  Herod,  fearing  that  the  great 
influence  John  had  over  the  people  might  lead  to 
some  rebellion  (for  the  people  seemed  likely  to  do 
anything  he  should  advise),  thought  it  far  best,  by 
putting   him  to   death,   to   prevent   any   mischief  he 


72  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

might  cause,  and  not  bring  himself  into  difficulties 
by  sparing  a  man  who  might  make  him  repent  of  his 
leniency  when  it  should  be  too  late.  Accordingly  he 
was  sent  a  prisoner,  in  consequence  of  Herod's  sus- 
picious temper,  to  Machserus,  the  fortress  before  men- 
tioned, and  was  there  put  to  death.  So  the  Jews  had 
the  opinion  that  the  destruction  of  this  army  [by 
Aretas]  was  sent  as  a  punishment  upon  Herod  and 
was  the  mark  of  God's  displeasure  at  him "  (Ant. 
xviii.  5.  2).  This  section  is  commonly  accepted  as 
trustworthy.  Superficially  different  from  the  gospel 
record  and  assigning  quite  another  cause  for  John's 
imprisonment  and  death,  it  correctly  describes  his 
character  and  his  influence  with  the  people,  and  leaves 
abundant  room  for  a  more  intimately  personal  motive 
on  the  part  of  Antipas  for  the  imprisonment  of  John. 
If  the  jealousy  of  Herodias  was  the  actual  reason  for 
John's  arrest,  it  is  highly  probable  that  another  cause 
would  be  named  to  the  world,  and  a  likelier  one  than 
that  given  by  Josephus  could  not  be  found. 

74.  The  first  problem  that  offers  itself  in  the  study 
of  this  man  is  the  man  himself.  Whence  did  he  come  ? 
Everything  about  him  is  surprising.  He  appears  as  a 
dweller  in  the  desert,  an  ascetic,  holding  aloof  from 
common  life  and  content  with  the  scanty  fare  the 
wilderness  could  offer ;  yet  he  was  keenly  appreciative 
of  his  people's  needs,  and  he  knew  their  sins,  —  the 
particular  ones  that  beset  Pharisees,  publicans,  soldiers. 
If  a  recluse  in  habit,  he  was  far  from  such  in  thought ; 
he  was  therefore  no  seeker  for  his  ovv^n  soul's  peace  in 
his  desert  life.  His  dress  was  strikingly  suggestive  of 
the  old  prophet  of  judgment  on  national  infidelity  (I. 
Kings  xvii.  1 ;  II.  Kings  i.  8),  the  Elijah  whom  John 


JOHN  AND  THE  ESSENES  73 

would  not  claim  to  be.  His  message  was  command- 
ing, with  its  double  word  ''  Kepent "  and  "  The  king- 
dom is  near."  His  idea  of  the  kingdom  was  definite, 
though  not  at  all  developed ;  it  signified  to  him  God's 
dominion,  inaugurated  by  a  divine  judgment  which 
should  mean  good  for  the  penitent  and  utter  destruc- 
tion for  the  ungodly ;  hence  the  prophet's  call  to  re- 
pentance. His  ministry  was  one  of  grace,  but  the  time 
was  drawing  near  when  the  Greater  One  would  appear 
to  complete  by  a  swift  judgment  the  work  v/hich  his 
forerunner  was  beginning.  That  Greater  One  would 
hew  down  the  fruitless  tree,  winnow  the  wheat  from 
the  chaff  on  the  threshing  floor,  baptize  the  penitent 
with  divine  power,  and  the  wicked  with  the  fire  of 
judgment,  since  his  was  to  be  a  ministry  of  judgment, 
not  of  grace. 

75.  Whence,  then,  came  this  strange  prophet  ?  Near 
the  desert  region  where  he  spent  his  youth  and  where 
he  first  proclaimed  his  message  of  repentance  and 
judgment  was  the  chief  settlement  of  that  strange  com- 
pany of  Jews  known  as  Essenes.  It  has  long  been 
customary  to  think  that  during  his  early  years  John 
was  associated  with  these  fellow-dwellers  in  the  desert, 
if  he  did  not  actually  join  the  order.  He  certainly  may 
have  learned  from  them  many  things.  Their  sympathy 
with  his  ascetic  life  and  with  his  thorough  moral  ear- 
nestness would  make  them  attractive  to  him,  but  he 
was  far  too  original  a  man  to  get  from  them  more 
than  some  suggestions  to  be  worked  out  in  his  own 
fashion.  The  simplicity  of  his  teaching  of  repentance 
and  the  disregard  of  ceremonial  in  his  preaching  sepa- 
rate him  from  these  monks.  John  may  have  known 
his   desert  companions,   may   have   appreciated  some 


74  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

tilings  in  their  discipline,  but  he  remained  independent 
of  their  guidance. 

76.  The  leaders  of  religious  life  and  thought  in  his 
day  were  unquestionably  the  Pharisees.  The  con- 
trolling idea  with  them,  and  consequently  with  the 
people,  was  the  sanctity  of  God's  law.  They  were 
conscious  of  the  sinfulness  of  the  people,  and  their 
demand  for  repentance  was  constant.  It  is  a  rabbinic 
commonplace  that  the  delay  of  the  Messiah's  coming  is 
due  to  lack  of  repentance  in  Israel.  But  near  as  this 
conception  is  to  John's,  we  need  but  to  recall  his  words 
to  the  Pharisees  (Matt.  iii.  7)  to  realize  how  clearly 
he  saw  through  the  hollo wness  of  their  religious  pre- 
tence. With  the  quibbles  of  the  scribes  concerning 
small  and  great  commandments.  Sabbaths  and  hand- 
washings,  John  shows  no  affinity.  He  may  have  learned 
some  things  from  these  "  sitters  in  Moses'  seat,"  but 
he  was  not  of  them. 

77.  John's  message  announced  the  near  approach  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  probable  that  many  of  those 
who  sought  his  baptism  were  ardent  nationalists, — 
eager  to  take  a  hand  in  realizing  that  consummation. 
Josephus  indicates  that  it  was  Herod's  fear  lest  John 
should  lead  these  Zealots  to  revolt  that  furnished  the 
ostensible  cause  of  his  death.  But  similar  as  were  the 
interests  of  John  and  these  nationalists,  the  distance 
between  them  was  great.  The  prophet's  replies  to  the 
publicans  and  to  the  soldiers,  which  contain  not  a 
word  of  rebuke  for  the  hated  callings  (Luke  iii.  13, 
14),  show  how  fundamentally  he  differed  from  the 
Zealots. 

78.  But  there  was  another  branch  of  the  Pharisees 
than  that  which  quibbled  over  Sabbath  laws,  tradi- 


JOHN  AND  APOCALYPSE  75 

tions,  and  tithes,  or  that  which  itched  to  grasp  the 
sword ;  they  were  men  who  saw  visions  and  dreamed 
dreams  like  those  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelation, 
and  in  their  visions  saw  God  bringing  deliverance 
to  his  people  by  swift  and  sudden  judgment.  There 
are  some  marked  likenesses  between  this  type  of 
thought  and  that  of  John,  —  the  impending  judg- 
ment, the  word  of  warning,  the  coming  blessing,  were 
all  in  John ;  but  one  need  only  compare  John's  words 
with  such  an  apocalypse  as  the  Assumption  of  Moses, 
probably  written  in  Palestine  during  John's  life  in 
the  desert,  to  discover  that  the  two  messages  do  not 
move  in  the  same  circle  of  thought  at  all;  there  is 
something  practical,  something  severely  heart-searching, 
something  at  home  in  every-day  life,  about  John's 
announcement  of  the  coming  kingdom  that  is  quite 
absent  from  the  visions  of  his  contemporaries.  John 
had  not,  like  some  of  these  seers,  a  coddling  sympathy 
for  people  steeped  in  sin.  He  traced  their  troubles  to 
their  own  doors,  and  would  not  let  ceremonies  pass 
in  place  of  "fruits  meet  for  repentance."  He  came 
from  the  desert  with  rebuke  and  warning  on  his  lips ; 
with  no  word  against  the  hated  Romans,  but  many 
against  hypocritical  claimants  to  the  privileges  of 
Abraham  ;  no  apology  for  his  message  nor  artificial 
device  of  dream  or  ancient  name  to  secure  a  hearing, 
but  the  old-fashioned  prophetic  method  of  declaration 
of  truth  "  whether  men  will  hear  or  whether  they  will 
forbear."  "  All  was  sharp  and  cutting,  imperious 
earnestness  about  final  questions,  unsparing  overthrow 
of  all  fictitious  shams  in  individual  as  in  national  life. 
There  are  no  theories  of  the  law,  no  new  good  works, 
no  belief  in  the  old,  but  simply  and  solely  a  prophetic 


76  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

clutch  at  men's  consciences,  a  mighty  accusation,  a 
crushing  summons  to  contrite  repentance  and  speedy 
sanctification  "  (KeimJN.  II.  228).  We  look  in  vain 
for  a  parallel  in  any  of  John's  contemporaries,  except 
in  that  one  before  whom  he  bowed,  saying,  "I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee." 

79.  John  had,  however,  predecessors  whose  work  he 
revived.  In  Isaiah's  words,  "Wash  you,  make  you 
clean"  (Isa.  i.  16),  one  recognizes  the  type  which 
reappeared  in  John.  The  great  prophetic  conception 
of  the  Day  of  the  Lord  —  the  day  of  wrath  and  salva- 
tion (Joel  ii.  1-14)  —  is  revived  in  John,  free  from 
all  the  fantastic  accompaniments  which  his  contem- 
poraries loved.  The  invitations  to  repentance  and 
new  fidelity  which  abound  in  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  Hosea, 
and  Joel;  the  summons  to  simple  righteousness,  which 
rang  from  the  lips  of  Micah  (vi.  8),  and  of  the 
great  prophet  of  the  exile  (Isa.  Iviii.),  these  tell  us 
where  John  went  to  school  and  how  well  he  learned 
his  lesson.  It  is  hard  for  us  to  realize  how  great  a 
novelty  such  simplicity  was  in  John's  day,  or  how 
much  originality  it  required  to  attain  to  this  disciple- 
ship  of  the  prophets.  From  the  time  when  the  cur- 
tain rises  on  the  later  history  of  Israel  in  the  daj-s  of 
the  Maccabean  struggle  to  the  coming  of  that  "  voice 
crying  in  the  wilderness,"  Israel  had  listened  in  vain 
for  a  prophet  who  could  speak  God's  will  with  author- 
ity. The  last  thing  that  people  expected  when  John 
came  was  such  a  simple  message.  He  was  not  the 
creature  of  his  time,  but  a  revival  of  the  older  type ; 
yet,  as  in  the  days  of  Elijah  God  had  kept  him  seven 
thousand  in  Israel  that  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to 
Baal,  so,  in  the  later  time,  not  all  vrere  bereft  of  liv- 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  77 

ing  faith.  These  devout  souls  furnished  the  soil 
which  could  produce  a  life  like  John's,  gifted  and 
chosen  by  God  to  restore  and  advance  the  older  and 
more  genuine  religion. 

80.  If  John  was  thus  a  revival  of  the  older  pro- 
phetic order,  a  second  question  arises :  Whence  came 
his  baptism,  and  what  did  it  signify?  The  gospels 
describe  it  as  a  "  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  "  (Mark  i.  4).  John's  declaration  that  his 
greater  successor  should  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire  (Matt.  iii.  11)  shows  that  he  viewed  his 
baptism  as  a  symbol,  rather  than  as  a  means,  of  remis- 
sion of  sin.  But  it  was  more  than  a  sign  of  repentance, 
it  was  a  confession  of  loyalty  to  the  kingdom  whicli 
John's  successor  was  to  establish.  It  had  thus  a  two- 
fold significance :  {a)  confession  of  and  turning  from 
the  old  life  of  sin,  and  (b)  consecration  to  the  coming 
kingdom.  Whence,  then,  came  this  ordinance?  Not 
from  the  Essenes,  for,  unlike  John's  baptism,  the  bath 
required  by  these  Jewish  ascetics  was  an  oft-repeated 
act.  Further,  John's  rite  had  a  far  deeper  religious 
significance  than  the  Essene  washings.  These  per- 
formed their  ablutions  to  secure  ritual  cleanness  as 
exemplary  disciples  of  the  Mosaic  ideal.  The  search- 
ing of  heart  which  preceded  John's  baptism,  and  the 
radical  change  of  life  it  demanded,  seem  foreign  to 
Essenism.  The  baptism  of  John,  considered  as  a  cere- 
mony of  consecration  for  the  coming  kingdom,  was 
parallel  rather  to  the  initiatory  oaths  of  the  Essene 
brotherhood  than  to  their  ablutions.  Their  custom 
may  have  served  to  suggest  to  John  a  different  appli- 
cation of  the  familiar  sacred  use  of  the  bath ;  indeed 
John  could   hardly  have   been   uninfluenced   by   the 


78  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

usage   of  his  contemporaries;  yet  in   this,   as  in  his 
thought,  he  was  not  a  product  of  their  school. 

81.  John's  baptism  was  equally  independent  of  the 
pharisaic  influence.  The  scribes  made  much  of  "di- 
vers washings,"  but  not  with  any  such  significance  as 
would  furnish  to  John  his  baptism  of  repentance  and 
of  radical  change  of  life.  That  he  was  not  following  a 
pharisaic  leading  appears  in  the  question  put  to  him 
by  the  Pharisees,  "  Why,  then,  baptizest  thou  ?  "  (John 
i.  25).  They  saw  something  miique  in  the  ceremony 
as  he  conducted  it. 

82.  Man}^  have  held  that  he  derived  his  baptism 
from  the  method  of  admitting  proselytes  into  the 
Jev/ish  fellowship.  It  is  clear,  at  least,  that  the  later 
ritual  prescribed  a  ceremonial  bath  as  well  as  circum- 
cision and  sacrifice  for  all  who  came  into  Judaism  from 
the  Gentiles,  and  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  time 
when  a  ceremonial  bath  would  not  seem  indispensable, 
since  Jews  regarded  all  Gentile  life  as  defiling.  While 
such  an  origin  for  John's  baptism  would  give  peculiar 
force  to  his  rebuke  of  Jewish  confidence  in  the  merits 
of  Abraham  (Matt.  iii.  9),  it  is  more  likely,  as  Keim  has 
shown  ( JN.  II.  243  and  note),  that  in  this  as  in  his  other 
thought  John  learned  of  his  predecessors  rather  than 
his  contemporaries.  Before  the  giving  of  the  older 
covenant  from  Sinai,  it  is  said  that  Moses  was  re- 
quired "  to  sanctify  the  people  and  bid  them  wash  their 
garments"  (Ex.  xix.  10).  John  was  proclaiming  the 
establishment  of  a  new  covenant,  as  the  prophets  had 
promised.  That  the  people  should  prepare  for  this 
by  a  similar  bath  of  sanctification  seems  most  natural. 
John  appeared  with  a  revival  of  the  older  and  simpler 
religious  ideas  of  Israel's  past,  deriving  his  rite  as  well 


THE  GREATNESS  OE  JOHN  79 

as  his  thought  from  the  springs  of  his  people's  religious 
life. 

83.  Tills  revival  of  the  prophetic  j)ast  had  nothing 
scholastic  or  antiquarian  about  it.  John  was  a  dis- 
ciple, not  an  imitator,  of  the  great  men  of  Israel ;  his 
message  was  not  learned  from  Isaiah  or  any  other, 
though  he  was  educated  by  studying  them.  What  he 
declared,  he  declared  as  truth  immediately  seen  by  his 
own  soul,  the  essence  of  his  power  being  a  revival,  not 
in  letter  but  in  spirit,  of  the  old,  direct  cry,  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord."  Inasmuch  as  John's  day  was  other- 
wise hopelessly  in  bondage  to  tradition  and  the  study 
of  the  letter,  by  so  much  is  his  greatness  enhanced  in 
bringing  again  God's  direct  message  to  the  human 
conscience.  John's  greatness  was  that  of  a  pioneer. 
The  Friend  of  publicans  and  sinners  also  spoke  a 
simple  speech  to  human  hearts ;  he  built  on  and  ad- 
vanced from  the  old  prophets,  but  it  was  John  who 
was  appointed  to  prepare  the  people  for  the  new  life, 
"to  make  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord"  (Mark  i.  3). 
The  clearness  of  his  perception  of  truth  is  not  the 
least  of  his  claims  to  greatness.  His  knowledge  of 
the  simplicity  of  God's  requirements  in  contrast  with 
the  hopeless  maze  of  pharisaic  traditions,  and  his 
insight  into  the  characters  with  whom  he  had  to  deal, 
whether  the  sinless  Jesus  or  the  hypocritical  Pharisees, 
show  a  man  marvellously  gifted  by  God  who  made 
good  use  of  his  gift.  This  greatness  appears  in  super- 
lative degree  in  the  self-effacement  of  him  who  pos- 
sessed these  powers.  Greatness  always  knows  itself 
more  or  less  fully.  It  was  not  self-ignorance  that  led 
John  to  claim  to  be  but  a  voice,  nor  was  it  mock 
humility.     The  confession  of  his  un worthiness  in  com- 


80  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

parison  with  the  mightier  one  who  shoukl  follow  is 
unmistakably  sincere,  as  is  the  completed  joy  of  this 
friend  of  the  bridegroom  rejoicing  greatly  because  of 
the  bridegroom's  voice,  even  when  the  bridegroom's 
presence  meant  the  recedence  of  the  friend  into  ever 
deepening  obscurity  (John  iii.  30). 

84.  But  John  had  marked  limitations.  He  knew 
well  the  righteousness  of  God  ;  he  knew,  and,  in  effect, 
proclaimed  God's  readiness  to  forgive  them  that  would 
turn  from  their  wicked  ways  ;  he  knew  the  simplicity 
as  well  as  the  exceeding  breadth  of  the  divine  com- 
mandment ;  but  beyond  one  flash  of  insight  (John  i. 
29-36),  which  did  not  avail  to  remould  his  thought, 
he  did  not  know  the  yearning  love  of  God  which  seeks 
to  save.  It  is  not  strange  that  he  did  not.  Some  of 
the  prophets  had  more  knowledge  of  it  than  he,  his 
own  favorite  Isaiah  knew  more  of  it  than  he,  but  it 
was  not  the  thought  of  John's  day.  The  wonder  is 
that  the  Baptist  so  far  freed  himself  from  current 
thought;  yet  he  did  not  belong  to  the  new  order. 
He  thundered  as  from  Sinai.  The  simplest  child 
that  has  learned  from  the  heart  its  "  Our  Father " 
has  reached  a  higher  knowledge  and  entered  a  higher 
privilege  (Matt.  xi.  11).  John's  self-effacement,  won- 
derful as  it  was,  fell  short  of  discipleship  to  his  greater 
successor ;  in  fact,  at  a  much  later  time  there  was  still 
a  circle  of  disciples  of  the  Baptist  who  kept  themselves 
separate  from  the  church  (Acts  xix.  1-7).  He  was 
doubtless  too  strenuous  a  man  readily  to  become  a 
follower.  He  could  yield  his  place  with  unapproach- 
able grace,  but  he  remained  the  prophet  of  the  wilder- 
ness still.  He  seemed  to  belong  consciously  to  the 
old  orde]",  and,  by  the  very  circumstances  ordained  of 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  81 

God  who  sent  him,  he  could  not  be  of  those  who, 
sitting  at  Jesus'  feet,  learned  to  surrender  to  him 
their  preconceptions  and  hopes,  and  in  heart,  if  not 
in  word,  to  say,  "  To  whom  shall  we  go,  thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life  ?  "  (John  vi.  68). 


VII 

THE  MESSIANIC   CALL 

Matt.  iii.  13  to  iv.  11;  Mark!.  9-13;  Luke  iii.  21,  22;  iv.  1-13; 
John  i.  30-34 

85.  Ik  the  circle  about  John  all  classes  of  the  people 
were  represented :  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  jealous  of 
innovation  and  apprehensive  of  popular  excitement; 
publicans  and  soldiers,  interested  in  the  new  preacher 
or  touched  in  conscience ;  outcasts  who  came  in  peni- 
tence, and  devout  souls  in  consecration.  The  wonder 
of  the  new  message  was  carried  throughout  the  land 
and  brought  great  multitudes  to  the  Jordan.  Jesus 
in  Nazareth  heard  it,  and  recognized  in  John  a  revival 
of  the  long-silent  prophetic  voice.  The  summons  ap- 
pealed to  his  loyalty  to  God's  truth,  and  after  the 
multitudes  had  been  baptized  (Luke  iii.  21)  he  too 
sought  the  prophet  of  the  wilderness. 

86.  The  connection  which  Luke  mentions  (i.  36) 
between  the  families  of  Jesus  and  John  had  not  led  to 
any  intimacy  between  the  two  young  men.  John 
certainly  did  not  know  of  his  kinsman's  mission  (John 
i.  31),  nor  was  his  conception  of  the  Messiah  such 
that  he  would  look  for  its  fulfilment  in  one  like  Jesus 
(Matt.  iii.  10-12).  One  thing,  however,  was  clear  as 
soon  as  they  met,  —  John  recognized  in  Jesus  one 
holier  than  himself  (Matt.  iii.  14).     With  a  prophet's 


THE  BAPTISM  83 

spiritual  insight  he  read  the  character  of  Jesus  at  a 
glance,  and  althovigh  that  character  did  not  prove  him 
to  be  the  Messiah,  it  prepared  John  for  the  revelation 
which  was  soon  to  follow. 

87.  The  reply  of  Jesus  to  the  unwillingness  of  John 
to  give  him  baptism  (Matt.  iii.  15)  was  an  expression 
of  firm  purpose  to  do  God's  will;  the  absence  of  any 
confession  of  sin  is  therefore  all  the  more  noticeable. 
In  all  generations  the  holiest  men  have  been  those 
most  conscious  of  imperfection,  and  in  John's  message 
and  baptism  confession  and  repentance  were  primary 
demands;  yet  Jesus  felt  no  need  for  repentance,  and 
asked  for  baptism  with  no  word  of  confession.  But 
for  the  fact  that  the  total  impression  of  his  life  begat 
in  his  disciples  the  conviction  that  "he  did  no  sin" 
(I.  Pet.  ii.  22;  compare  John  viii.  46;  II.  Cor.  v.  21), 
this  silence  of  Jesus  would  offend  the  religious  sense. 
Jesus,  however,  had  no  air  of  self-sufficiency,  he  came 
to  make  surrender  and  "to  fulfil  all-righteousness" 
(Matt.  iii.  15).  It  was  the  positive  aspect  of  John's 
baptism  that  drew  him  to  the  Jordan.  John  was 
preaching  the  coming  of  God's  kingdom.  The  place 
held  by  the  doctrine  of  that  kingdom  in  the  later 
teaching  of  Jesus  makes  it  all  but  certain  that  his 
thought  had  been  filled  with  it  for  many  years.  In 
his  reading  of  the  prophets  Jesus  undoubtedly  empha- 
sized the  spiritual  phases  of  their  promises,  but  it  is 
not  likely  that  he  had  done  much  criticising  of  the 
ideas  held  by  his  contemporaries  before  he  came  to 
John.  As  already  remarked  he  seems  to  have  been 
quicker  to  discover  his  affinity  with  the  older  truth 
than  to  be  conscious  of  the  novelty  of  his  own  ways  of 
apprehending  it  (Matt.   v.  17).     When,  then,   Jesus 


84  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

heard  John's  call  for  consecration  to  the  approaching 
kingdom  he  recognized  the  voice  of  duty,  and  he 
sought  the  baptism  that  he  might  do  all  that  he  could 
to  "make  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord." 

88.  This  act  of  consecration  on  Jesus'  part  was  one 
of  personal  obedience.  There  were  no  crowds  present 
(Luke  iii.  21),  and  his  thoughts  were  full  of  prayer. 
It  was  an  experience  which  concerned  his  innermost 
life  with  God,  and  it  called  him  to  communion  with 
heaven  like  that  in  which  he  sought  for  wisdom  before 
choosing  his  apostles  (Luke  vi.  12),  and  for  strength 
in  view  of  his  approaching  death  (Luke  ix.  28,  29). 
His  outward  declaration  of  loyalty  to  the  coming  king- 
dom was  thus  not  an  act  of  righteousness  "  to  be  seen 
of  men,"  but  one  of  personal  devotion  to  him  who  is 
and  who  sees  in  secret  (Matt.  vi.  1,  6).  As  the  trans- 
figuration followed  the  prayer  on  Hermon,  so  this 
initial  consecration  was  answered  from  heaven.  A 
part  of  the  answer  was  evident  to  John,  for  he  saw  a 
visible  token  of  the  gift  of  the  divine  Spirit  which 
was  granted  to  Jesus  for  the  conduct  of  the  work  he 
had  to  do,  and  he  recognized  in  Jesus  the  greater  suc- 
cessor for  whom  he  w^as  simply  making  preparation 
(Mark  i.  10;  John  i.  32-34).  To  Jesus  there  came 
also  with  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  a  definite  word  from 
heaven,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well 
pleased "  (Mark  i.  11).  The  language  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  and  the  silence  of  the  Baptist  concerning  the 
voice  from  heaven  (John  i.  32-34),  indicate  that  the 
word  came  to  Jesus  alone,  and  was  his  summons  to 
undertake  the  work  of  setting  up  that  kingdom  to 
which  he  had  just  pledged  his  loyalty.  The  expres- 
sion "  My  beloved  Son  "  had  clear  Messianic  signifi- 


THE  MESSIA^^IC   CALL  85 

cance  for  Jesus'  contemporaries  (comp.  Mark  xiv.  62), 
and  the  message  can  have  signified  for  him  nothing 
less  than  a  Messianic  call.  It  implied  more  than  that 
child-relation  to  God  which  was  the  fundamental  fact 
in  his  religious  life  from  the  beginning :  it  had  an  offi- 
cial meaning. 

89.  For  Jesus  the  sense  of  being  God's  child  was 
normally  human,  and  in  his  ministry  he  invited  all 
men  to  a  similar  consciousness  of  sonship.  Yet  his 
early  years  must  have  brought  to  him  a  realization  that 
he  was  different  from  his  fellows.  That  in  him  which 
made  a  confession  at  the  baptism  unnatural  and  which 
led  to  John's  word,  "I  have  need  to  be  baptized  by 
thee,"  was  ready  to  echo  assent  when  God  said,  "  Thou 
art  my  Son."  He  accepted  the  call  and  the  new  office 
and  mission  which  it  implied,  and  he  must  have  recog- 
nized that  it  was  for  this  moment  that  all  the  jDast  of 
his  life  had  been  making  preparation. 

90.  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  Jesus,  which  furnished 
to  John  the  proof  that  the  Greater  One  had  appeared, 
was  not  an  arbitrary  sign.  The  old  prophetic  thought 
(Isa.  xi.  2;  xlii.  1;  Ixi.  1)  as  well  as  a  later  popular 
expectation  (Ps.  of  Sol.  xvii.  42)  provided  for  such  an 
anointing  of  the  Messiah;  and  in  the  actual  conduct 
of  his  life  Jesus  was  constantly  under  the  leading  of 
this  Spirit  (see  Matt.  xii.  28  and  John  iii.  34).  The 
temptation  which  followed  the  baptism,  and  in  which 
he  faced  the  difficulties  in  his  new  task,  was  the  first 
result  of  the  Spirit's  control.  Its  later  influence  is 
not  so  clearly  marked  in  the  gospels,  but  they  imply 
that  as  the  older  servants  of  God  were  guided  and 
strengthened  by  him,  so  his  Son  also  was  aided,  — 
with  this  difference,  however,  that  he  possessed  com- 


86  THE  LIFE  OE  JESUS 

pletely  the  heavenly  gift  (John  iii.  34).  Jesus'  uni- 
form confession  of  dependence  on  God  confirms  this 
teaching  of  the  gift  of  the  divine  Spirit;  and  his  uni- 
form consciousness  of  complete  power  and  authority 
confirms  the  testimony  that  he  had  the  Spirit  "  with- 
out measure." 

91.  The  temptation  to  which  the  Spirit  "drove" 
Jesus  after  his  baptism  gives  proof  that  the  call  to 
assume  the  Messianic  office  came  to  him  unexpectedly ; 
for  the  three  temptations  with  which  his  long  struggle 
ended  were  echoes  of  the  voice  which  he  had  heard  at 
the  Jordan,  and  subtle  insinuations  of  doubt  of  its 
meaning.  Some  withdrawal  to  contemplate  the  sig- 
nificance of  his  appointment  to  a  Messianic  work  was 
a  mental  and  spiritual  necessity.  As  has  often  been 
said,  if  the  gospels  had  not  recorded  the  temptation,  we 
should  have  had  to  assume  one.  Jesus  being  the  man 
he  was,  could  not  have  thought  that  his  call  was  a 
summons  to  an  entire  change  in  his  ideals  and  his 
thoughts  about  God  and  duty.  Yet  he  must  have 
been  conscious  of  the  wdde  differences  between  his 
conceptions  of  God's  kingdom  and  the  popular  expec- 
tation. Those  differences,  by  the  measure  of  the  defi- 
niteness  of  the  popular  thought  and  the  ardor  of  the 
popular  hope,  were  the  proof  of  the  difficulty  of  his 
task.  The  call  meant  that  the  Messiah  could  be  such 
as  he  was;  it  meant  that  the  kingdom  could  be  and 
must  be  a  dominion  of  God  primarily  in  the  hearts  of 
men  and  consequently  in  their  world;  it  meant  that 
his  work  must  be  religious  rather  than  political,  and 
gracious  rather  than  judicial.  These  essentials  of  the 
work  which  he  could  do  contradicted  at  nearly  every 
point  the  expectations  of  his  people.     How  could  he 


THE  TEMPTATION  87 

succeed  in  the  face  of  such  opposition?  His  long 
meditation  during  forty  days  doubtless  showed  him 
the  difficulty  of  his  task  in  all  its  baldness,  yet  it  did 
not  shake  his  certainty  that  the  call  had  come  to  him 
from  God,  nor  his  faith  that  what  God  had  called  him 
to  do  he  could  accomplish. 

92.  The  gospels  show  no  hesitation  in  calling  the 
experience  of  these  days  a  temptation,  nor  had  the 
Christian  feeling  of  the  first  century  any  difficulty  in 
thinking  of  its  Lord  as  actually  suffering  temptation 
(Heb.  ii.  18 ;  iv.  15).  A  temptation  to  be  real  cannot 
be  hypothetical;  evil  must  actually  present  itself  as 
attractive  to  the  tempted  soul.  A  suggestion  of  evil 
that  takes  no  hold  concretely  of  the  heart  is  no  tempta- 
tion, nor  is  the  resistance  of  it  any  victory.  The  sin- 
lessness  of  him  who  sought  baptism  with  no  confession 
on  his  lips  nor  sense  of  penitence  in  his  heart  offers  no 
barrier  to  his  experience  of  genuine  temptation,  unless 
we  think  him  incapable  of  sin,  and  therefore  not  "  like 
unto  his  brethren."  Not  only  do  the  gospels  repeat- 
edly refer  to  his  temptations  (Luke  iv.  13 ;  Mark  viii. 
31-33;  Luke  xxii.  28;  compare  Heb.  v.  7-9),  but 
they  also  depict  clearly  the  reality  of  these  initial 
testings.  The  account  as  given  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
represents  the  experience  with  which  the  forty  days' 
struggle  culminated.  The  absorption  of  Jesus'  mind 
had  been  so  complete  that  he  had  neglected  the  needs 
of  his  body,  and  when  he  turned  to  think  of  earthly 
things  he  was  pressed  by  hunger.  A  popular  notion 
at  a  later  time,  and  probably  also  in  Jesus'  day,  was 
that  the  Messiah  would  be  able  to  feed  his  people  as 
Moses  had  given  them  manna  in  the  wilderness  (John 
vi.    30-32;    see   EdersLJM.  I.    176).      He    had   just 


88  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

been  endowed  with  the  divine  Spirit  for  the  work 
before  him;  it  was  therefore  no  fantastic  idea  when 
the  suggestion  came  that  he  should  use  his  power  to 
supply  his  own  needs  in  the  desert.  Nor  was  the 
temptation  without  attractiveness;  his  own  physical 
nature  urged  its  need,  and  Jesus  was  no  ascetic  who 
found  discomfort  a  way  of  holiness.  The  evil  in  the 
suggestion  was  that  it  asked  him  to  use  his  newly 
given  powers  for  the  supply  of  his  own  needs,  as  if 
doubting  that  God  would  care  for  him  as  for  any  other 
of  his  children.  There  wTis  more  than  distrust  of  God 
suggested ;  the  temptation  came  with  a  hint  of  another 
doubt,  —  "7/"  thou  art  God's  Son."  A  miracle  would 
prove  to  himself  his  appointm.ent  and  his  poAver.  The 
suggested  doubt  of  his  call  he  passed  unnoticed;  dis- 
trust of  God  he  repudiated  instantly,  falling  back  on 
his  faith  in  the  God  he  had  served  these  many  years 
(Deut.  viii.  3).  His  victory  is  remarkable  because  his 
spirit  conquered  unhesitatingly  after  a  long  ecstasy 
which  would  naturally  have  induced  a  reaction  and  a 
surrender  for  the  moment  to  the  demand  of  lower  needs. 
93.  This  firmness  of  trust  opened  the  way  for  an- 
other evil  suggestion.  In  the  work  before  him  as 
God's  Anointed  many  difficulties  were  on  either  side 
and  across  his  path.  He  knew  his  people,  their  preju- 
dices, and  their  hardness  of  heart;  and  he  knew  how 
far  he  was  from  their  ideal  of  a  Messiah.  He  knew 
also  the  watchful  jealousy  of  Rome.  Others  before 
him,  like  Judas  of  Galilee,  had  tried  the  Messianic  role 
and  had  failed.  He,  however,  was  confident  of  his 
divine  call:  should  he  not,  therefore,  press  forward 
with  his  work,  heedless  of  all  danger  and  regardless 
of  the  dictates  of  prudence,  — as  heedless  as  if,  trust- 


THE  TEMPTATION  89 

ing  God's  promised  care,  he  should  cast  himself  down 
from  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple  to  the  rocks  in  Kidron 
below?  A  fanatic  would  have  yielded  to  such  a 
temptation.  Many  another  than  Jesus  did  so,  — 
Theudas  (Acts  v.  36),  the  Egyptian  (Acts  xxi.  38); 
and  Bar  Cochba  (Dio  Cassius,  Ixix.  12-14;  Euseb. 
Ch.  Hist.  iv.  6).  Jesus,  however,  showed  his  perfect 
mental  health,  repudiating  the  temptation  by  declaring 
that  while  man  may  trust  God's  care,  he  must  not 
presumptuously  put  it  to  the  test  (Matt.  iv.  7).  The 
after  life  of  Jesus  was  a  clear  commentary  on  this  re- 
ply. He  constantly  sought  to  avoid  situations  which 
would  compromise  his  mission  or  cut  short  his  work 
(see  John  vi.  15),  and  when  at  the  end  he  suffered  the 
death  prepared  for  him  by  his  peojjle's  hatred,  it  was 
because  his  hour  had  come  and  he  could  say,  "I  lay 
down  my  life  of  myself  "  (John  x.  18).  His  marvel- 
lous control  of  enthusiasm  and  his  self-mastery  in  all 
circumstances  se^Darate  Jesus  from  all  ecstatics  and 
fanatics.  Yet  presumption  must  have  seemed  the 
easier  course,  and  could  readily  wear  the  mask  of 
trust.     He  was  tempted,  yet  without  sin. 

94.  As  the  refusal  to  doubt  led  to  the  temptation  to 
presume,  so  the  determination  to  be  prudent  opened 
the  way  for  a  third  assault  upon  his  perfect  loyalty  to 
God.  The  world  he  was  to  seek  to  save  was  swayed 
by  passions;  his  own  people  were  longing  for  a 
Messiah,  but  they  must  have  their  kind  of  a  Messiah. 
If  he  would  acknowledge  this  actual  supremacy  of  evil 
and  self-will  in  the  world,  the  opposition  of  passion 
and  prejudice  might  be  avoided.  If  he  would  own 
the  evil  inevitable  for  the  time,  and  accommodate 
his  work  to  it,  he  might  then  be  free  to  lead  men  to 


90  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

higher  and  more  spiritual  views  of  God's  kingdom. 
His  knowledge  of  his  people's  grossness  of  heart  and 
materialism  of  hope  made  a  real  temptation  of  the  sug- 
gestion that  he  should  not  openly  oppose  but  should 
accommodate  himself  to  them.  Jesus  did  not  under- 
estimate the  opposition  of  "the  kingdoms  of  the 
world,"  but  he  truly  estimated  God's  intolerance  of 
any  rivalry  (Matt.  iv.  10),  and  he  was  true  to  God 
and  to  his  own  soul.  Again,  in  this  as  in  the  preced- 
ing temptations,  Jesus  conquered  the  evil  suggestions 
by  appropriating  to  himself  truth  spoken  by  God's 
servants  to  Israel.  Tempted  in  all  points  like  his 
brethren,  he  resisted  as  any  one  of  them  could  have 
resisted,  and  won  a  victory  possible,  ideally  consid- 
ered, to  any  other  of  the  children  of  men. 

95.  It  is  not  idle  curiosity  which  inquires  whence 
the  evangelists  got  this  story  of  the  temptation  of 
Jesus.  Even  if  the  whole  transaction  took  place  on 
the  plane  of  outer  sensuous  life,  and  Jesus  was  bodily 
carried  to  Jerusalem  and  to  the  mountain-top,  there  is 
no  probability  that  any  witnesses  were  at  hand  who 
could  tell  the  tale.  But  the  fact  that  in  any  case  the 
vision  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  w^orld  in  a  moment  of 
time  (Luke  iv.  5)  could  have  been  s^^iritual  only, 
since  no  mountain,  however  high  (Matt.  iv.  8),  could 
give,  physically,  that  wide  sweep  of  view,  suggests 
that  the  whole  account  tells  in  pictorial  language  an 
intensely  real,  inner  experience  of  Jesus.  This  in  no 
respect  reduces  the  truthfulness  of  the  narratives. 
Temptation  never  becomes  temptation  till  it  passes  to 
that  inner  scene  of  action  and  debate.  Since  Jesus 
shows  in  all  his  teaching  a  natural  use  of  parabolic 
language  to  set  forth  spiritual  truth,  the  inference  is 


THE  OUTCOME  91 

almost  inevitable  that  the  gospels  have  in  like  manner 
adopted  the  language  of  vivid  picture  as  alone  ade- 
quate to  depict  the  essential  reality  of  his  inner 
struggle.  In  any  case  the  narrative  could  have  come 
from  no  other  source  than  himself.  How  he  came  to 
tell  it  we  do  not  know.  On  one  of  the  days  of  private 
converse  with  his  disciples  after  the  confession  at 
Csesarea  Philippi  he  may  have  given  them  this  account 
of  his  own  experience,  in  order  to  help  his  loyal  Gali- 
leans to  understand  more  fully  his  work  and  the  way 
of  it,  and  to  prepare  them  for  that  disappointment  of 
their  expectations  which  they  were  so  slow  to  acknowl- 
edge as  possible. 

96.  From  this  struggle  in  the  wilderness  Jesus 
came  forth  with  the  clear  conviction  that  he  was 
God's  Anointed,  and  in  all  his  after  life  no  hesitation 
appeared.  The  kingdom  which  he  undertook  to  estab- 
lish was  that  dominion  of  simple  righteousness  which 
he  had  learned  to  know  and  love  in  the  years  of  quiet 
life  in  Nazareth.  He  set  out  to  do  his  work  fearlessly, 
but  prudently,  seeking  to  win  men  in  his  Father's  way 
to  acknowledge  that  Father's  sovereignty.  There  is 
no  evidence  that,  beyond  such  firm  conviction  and 
purpose,  he  had  any  fixed  plan  for  the  work  he  was  to 
do,  nor  that  he  saw  clearly  as  yet  how  his  earthly 
career  would  end.  The  third  temptation,  however, 
shows  that  he  was  not  unprepared  for  seeming  defeat. 
The  struggle  had  been  long  and  serious,  —  for  the 
three  temptations  of  the  end  are  doubtless  typical  of 
the  whole  of  the  forty  days,  —  and  the  victory  was 
great  and  final.  With  the  light  of  victory  as  well  as 
the  marks  of  warfare  on  his  face,  he  took  his  way  back 
towards  Galilee. 


VIII 

THE  FIRST  DISCIPLES 
John  i.  19  to  ii.  12 

97.  After  the  withdrawal  of  Jesus  into  the  wilder- 
ness, John  the  Baptist  continued  his  ministry  of  preach- 
ing and  baptizing,  moving  northward  up  the  Jordan 
valley  to  Bethany,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  river, 
near  one  of  the  fords  below  the  Sea  of  Galilee  (John  i. 
28).  Here  Galilee,  doubtless,  contributed  more  to  his 
audience  than  Judea.  It  is  certain  that  some  from  the 
borders  of  the  lake  were  at  this  time  among  his  con- 
stant attendants  :  Andrew  and  Simon  of  Bethsaida, 
John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  perhaps  his  brother 
James,  probably  also  Philip  of  Bethsaida  and  Nathan- 
ael  of  Cana  (John  i.  40,  41,  43-45;  compare  xxi.  2). 

98.  The  leaders  in  Jerusalem,  becoming  apprehen- 
sive wliither  this  work  would  lead,  sent  an  embassy  to 
question  John.  They  chose  for  this  mission  priests 
and  Levites  of  pharisaic  leaning  as  most  influential 
among  the  people.  The  impression  John  and  his 
message  were  making  on  the  popular  mind  is  seen  in 
the  questions  put  to  him,  "  Art  thou  the  Messiah  ?  " 
''Elijah?"  "The  prophet ?"  (see  Deut.  xviii.  15), 
and  in  the  challenge,  "  Why,  then,  baptizest  thou  ?  " 
when  John  disclaimed  the  right  to  any  of  these  names. 
John's  reply  is  the  echo  of  liis  earlier  proclamation  of 


THE   WITNESS  OF  JOHN  93 

the  one  mightier  than  he  who  should  baptize  with  the 
Spirit  (Mark  i.  7,  8),  only  nov/  he  added  that  this  one 
was  present  among  them  (John  i.  26,  27). 

99.  Tliis  interview  occurred  several  weeks  after 
Jesus'  baptism,  for  upon  the  next  day  John  saw  Jesus 
(John  i.  29),  now  returned  from  the  temptation,  and 
pointed  him  out  to  a  group  of  disciples.  Something 
in  Jesus'  face  or  in  his  bearing,  as  he  came  from  his 
temptation,  must  have  impressed  John  even  more  than 
at  their  first  meeting;  for  he  was  led  to  think  of  a 
prophetic  word  for  the  most  part  ignored  by  the 
Messianic  thought  of  his  day,  "  He  was  brought  as  a 
Iamb  to  the  slaughter"  (Isa.  liii.  7).  As  he  looked 
on  Jesus  the  mysterious  oracle  was  illuminated  for 
him,  and  he  cried,  "  Behold  the  lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  Once  again  on 
the  next  day  the  same  thought  rushed  to  his  lij)S 
when,  with  two  disciples,  he  saw  Jesus  passing  by 
(John  i.  35,  36).  Then  as  Jesus  left  John's  neighbor- 
hood and  took  up  again  the  round  of  ordinary  life, 
John  seems  to  have  reverted  to  his  more  ordinary  Mes- 
sianic thought,  his  momentary  insight  into  highest 
truth  standing  as  a  thing  apart  in  his  life.  Such  a 
moment's  insight,  caused  by  extraordinary  circum- 
stances, no  more  requires  that  John  should  retain  the 
high  thought  constantly  than  does  Peter's  confession 
of  Christ  at  Csesarea  Philippi  exclude  his  later  rebuke 
of  his  Lord  (Mark  viii.  32,  33),  or  his  denials  (Mark 
xiv.  66-72). 

100.  The  disciples  who  heard  these  testimonies 
from  John  understood  them  to  be  Messianic  (John  i. 
30-34),  though  their  later  consternation,  when  the 
cross  seemed  to  shatter  their  hopes  (John  xx.  9, 10,  24, 


94  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

25),  shows  that  they  did  not  comprehend  their  deeper 
meaning.  Two  of  these  disciples  at  once  attached 
themselves  to  Jesus,  and  one  of  them,  Andrew  of 
Bethsaida,  was  so  impressed  by  the  new  master  that, 
having  sought  out  his  brother  Simon,  he  declared 
that  they  had  found  the  Messiah.  The  other  of  these 
earliest  followers  was  John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  it 
is  possible  that  he  also  found  his  brother  and  intro- 
duced James  from  the  very  first  into  the  circle  of  the 
disciples.  Jesus  was  about  to  take  his  departure  for 
Galilee,  and  on  the  next  day,  as  he  was  leaving,  added 
Philip  of  Bethsaida  to  the  little  company  of  followers. 
Philip,  impressed  as  Andrew  had  been,  brought  Nathan- 
ael  of  Cana  to  Jesus.  The  undefined  something  about 
Jesus  which  drew  noble  hearts  irresistibly  to  himself, 
and  his  marvellous  knowledge  of  this  new  comer,  pro- 
duced the  same  effect  in  Nathanael,  as  was  seen  earlier 
in  Andrew  and  Philip,  and  he  acknowledged  the  new 
master  as  "  Son  of  God,  King  of  Israel "  (John  i.  49). 

101.  These  early  confessions  in  the  fourth  gospel 
present  a  difficulty  in  view  of  Jesus'  warm  approval 
of  Peter's  acknowledgment  of  him  at  Csesarea  Phili^^pi 
(Matt.  xvi.  13-20).  Jesus  saw  in  that  confession  a 
distinct  advance  in  the  disciples'  thought  and  faith. 
Yet  the  religious  feeling  which  early  questioned 
whether  the  Baptist  even  were  not  the  Messiah  (Luke 
iii.  15)  would  almost  certainly  have  concluded  that 
John's  greater  successor  must  be  God's  anointed.  The 
very  fact  that  men's  thoughts  about  the  Messiah  were 
varied  and  complex  made  them  ready  for  some  modi- 
fications of  their  preconceptions.  One  with  such  subtle 
personal  power  as  Jesus  had  exercised  was  almost  sure 
to  be  hailed  by  some  with  enthusiasm  as  the  looked- 


THE  VISIT  TO   CANA  95 

for  representative  of  God.  In  fact,  it  is  probable  that 
at  any  time  in  the  early  clays  of  his  ministry  Jesus 
could  have  been  proclaimed  Messiah,  provided  he  had 
accepted  the  people's  terms.  Such  a  confession  would 
have  been  merely  the  outcome  of  enthusiasm.  The 
people,  even  the  disciples,  did  not  know  Jesus.  They 
all  had  high  hopes  and  somewhat  fixed  ideas  about 
the  Messiah,  nearly  every  one  of  which  was  destined 
to  rude  shock.  How  little  they  knew  him  Jesus 
reahzed  (John  i.  51),  and  his  self-mastery  is  manifest 
in  his  attitude  to  this  early  entkusiasm.  He  was  no 
visionary ;  he  had  a  great  work  to  do  and  a  long  lesson 
to  teach,  and  he  was  patient  enough  to  teach  it  little 
by  little.  He  did  not  rebuke  the  ill-informed  faith  of 
a  Nathanael,  but  sought  gradually  to  supplant  the  old 
thought  of  the  Messiah  and  of  the  kingdom  by  new 
truth,  and  to  bind  men's  affections  to  himself  for  his 
own  sake  and  the  truth's  sake,  not  simply  for  the  idea 
which  he  impersonated  to  them. 

102.  The  visit  to  Cana  seems  to  have  found  a  place 
in  the  fourth  gospel,  because  there  the  new  disciples  dis- 
covered in  their  master  miraculous  powers  which  were 
to  them  a  sign  that  he  was  in  truth  God's  anointed. 
It  is  probable  that  at  the  time  of  this  miracle  the  dis- 
ciples thought  only  of  the  power  and  the  marvel,  yet 
the  sharp  contrast  between  John's  ascetic  habit  and 
Jesus'  use  of  his  divine  resources  to  relieve  embar- 
rassment at  a  wedding  feast  must  have  impressed 
every  man  among  them.  Their  minds,  however,  were 
as  yet  too  full  of  Messianic  hopes  to  leave  much  room 
for  reflection.  They  were  content  to  have  a  sign, 
for  in  the  view  of  Jesus'  contemporaries  signs  were 
essential  marks  of  the  Messiah  (John  vi.  30 ;  vii.  31 ; 


96  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Mark  viii.  11).     They  did  their  reflecting  later  (John 
ii.  22). 

103.  Miracles  are  as  great  a  stumbling-block  to  mod- 
ern thought  as  they  were  a  help  to  the  contemporaries 
of  Jesus.  The  study  of  Jesus'  life  cannot  ignore  this 
fact,  nor  make  little  of  it.  It  is  fair  to  insist,  however, 
that  the  question  is  one  of  evidence,  not  of  metaphysical 
possibility.  Men  are  wisely  slow  to-day  to  claim  that 
they  can  tell  what  are  the  limits  of  the  possible.  If 
the  question  is  one  of  evidence,  it  is  in  an  important 
sense  true  that  the  evidence  for  miracle  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  appreciable  only  when  that  life  is  viewed  in  its 
completeness.  The  miracles  attributed  to  Jesus  may 
be  studied,  however,  for  the  disclosure  which  they  give 
of  his  character,  and  of  his  relation  to  common  human 
need.  So  it  is  with  this  lirst  sign  at  Cana.  Jesus  had 
just  heard  the  call  to  be  Messiah,  and  in  his  lonely 
struggle  in  the  wilderness  had  given  a  loyal  answer  to 
that  call,  and  had  set  out  to  do  his  Father's  business 
in  his  Father's  way.  He  who  by  the  Jordan  still  car- 
ried the  marks  of  struggle,  so  that  the  Baptist  saw  in 
him  the  suffering  Saviour  of  Isaiah  liii.,  now  returned 
to  the  ordinary  daily  life  in  Galilee,  and  as  a  guest  at 
a  wedding  feast  he  commenced  that  ministry  of  simple 
human  friendliness  (Matt.  xi.  19;  compare  Mark  ii. 
15-17 ;  Luke  xv.  1,  2),  which  set  him  in  sharp  contrast 
alike  with  John's  asceticism  and  with  the  ritualism  and 
pedantry  of  the  Pharisees. 

104.  His  human  friendliness  is  all  the  more  worthy 
of  note,  inasmuch  as  on  his  return  to  Cana  Jesus  did 
not  take  up  again  the  old  relations  of  life  as  they 
existed  before  his  baptism.  This  is  clear  from  his 
reply  to  his  mother  when  she  reported  the  scarcity  of 


JESUS  AND  HIS  MOTHER  97 

wine  (John  ii.  3-5).  While  it  is  true  that  the  title 
by  which  Jesus  addressed  Mary  was  neither  disre- 
spectful nor  unkind  (John  xix.  26),  the  reply  itself  was 
a  warning  that  now  he  was  no  longer  hers  in  the  old 
sense.  A  new  mission  had  been  given  him,  Avhich 
henceforth  would  determine  all  his  conduct,  and  in 
that  mission  she  could  not  now  share.  Here  is  one 
of  the  many  indications  (compare  Mark  iii.  21,  31-35 ; 
Luke  ii.  48)  that  Mary  did  not  understand  her  son  nor 
his  work  until  much  later  (John  xix.  25;  Acts  i.  14). 
That  with  such  a  clear  sense  of  his  new  and  serious 
mission  Jesus'  first  official  act  was  one  of  kindly  relief 
for  social  embarrassment  is  most  significant.  He  chose 
to  show  his  divine  authority  to  his  new  disciples  in  a 
way  that  brought  joy  to  a  festal  company.  Little  as 
the  disciples  were  likely  to  appreciate  it  at  the  time,  it 
was  beautifully  indicative  of  the  simplicity  and  every- 
day lovableness  of  Jesus'  idea  of  the  earnest  service 
of  God. 

105.  With  the  disciples  thus  strengthened  in  faith, 
and  the  mother  not  separated  from  him  though  unable 
to  know  his  deepest  thoughts,  and  the  brethren  who 
could  not  yet  nor  later  understand  their  kinsman  and 
his  work,  Jesus  went  down  to  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12), 
which  proved  thenceforth  to  be  the  centre  of  his  great- 
est work  and  teaching.  There  for  a  time,  how  long 
cannot  be  known,  he  continued  in  quiet  fellowship  with 
his  new  friends,  until  the  approach  of  the  Passover 
drew  him  to  Jerusalem  to  make  formal  opening  of  his 
Messianic  work  in  that  centre  of  his  people's  religious 
life. 


PART  II 
THE  MINISTRY 


GENERAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

106.  The  attempt  to  arrange  an  orderly  account  of 
the  way  in  which  Jesus  set  about  the  work  to  which 
he  was  called  at  his  baptism  is  met  at  the  outset  by 
a  problem.  The  vivid  and  familiar  words  of  Mark 
(i.  14),  seconded  by  the  representation  in  both  Mat- 
thew (iv.  12)  and  Luke  (iv.  1-1),  indicate  the  imprison- 
ment of  John  as  the  occasion,  and  Galilee  as  the  scene 
of  the  inauguration  of  Jesus'  public  ministry.  The 
fourth  gospel,  on  the  other  hand,  tells  of  a  work  of 
Jesus  and  his  disciples  in  Judea  prior  to  the  imprison- 
ment of  John  (iii.  24),  and  makes  this  work  follow  at 
some  interval  after  the  inauguration  of  the  Messianic 
ministry  in  Jerusalem.  The  minuteness  of  detail  of 
time  and  place  in  the  early  chapters  of  John  (i.  19  to 
iv.  43),  together  with  the  vividness  of  their  narrative, 
give  them  strong  claim  to  credence.  They  thus  record 
a  ministry  earlier  than  that  narrated  in  the  other  gos- 
pels, proving  that  the  actual  inauguration  of  Jesus' 
work  occurred  in  Jerusalem  at  a  Passover  season 
previous  to  the  imprisonment  of  John.  This  is 
known   as   the   Early   Judean   Ministry. 

107.  The  fact  that  Peter  was  wont  to  tell  the  story 
of  Jesus'  life  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  Mark  to  set  the 
opening  of  the  ministry  after  the  close  of  John's  activ- 


102  THE  LIFE   or  JESUS 

ity,  indicates  that  that  beginning  of  work  in  Galilee 
seemed  to  the  disciples  to  be  in  a  way  the  actual  inau- 
guration of  Jesus'  constructive  and  successful  work. 
Peter  cannot  have  been  ignorant  of  the  labors  in  Judea, 
though  he  may  not  himself  have  accompanied  Jesus  to 
the  Passover.  A  new  stage  in  the  life  of  Jesus  began, 
therefore,  with  his  withdrawal  to  Galilee. 

108.  The  story  of  the  Galilean  ministry  is  given 
chiefly  by  the  first  three  gospels,  John  contributing 
but  two  incidents  to  the  period  covered  by  that  min- 
istry, —  a  second  miracle  at  Cana  (iv.  46-54),  and  a 
visit  to  Judea  (v.  1-47),  —  and  relating  more  fully  the 
story  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes  (vi.  1-71).  The 
journey  from  Judea  through  Samaria  (John  iv.  1-45) 
should  be  identified  with  the  removal  to  Galilee  which 
stands  at  the  beginning  of  Mark's  record  (i.  14 ;  Matt, 
iv.  12;  Luke  iv.  14).  Mark's  account  of  the  Galilean 
activity  of  Jesus  (i.  14  to  ix.  50)  is  one  of  such  simple 
and  steady  progress  that  the  whole  period  must  be 
considered  as  a  unit. 

109.  In  the  use  which  Matthew  (iv.  12  to  xviii.  35) 
and  Luke  (iv.  14  to  ix.  50)  make  of  Mark's  record 
this  unity  is  emphasized.  Their  treatment  of  the 
matter  which  they  add,  however,  makes  it  best  to 
study  the  period  topically  rather  than  attempt  to  fol- 
low closely  a  chronological  sequence.  As  it  is  prob- 
able that  the  early  writing  ascribed  by  Papias  to  the 
apostle  Matthew  failed  to  preserve  in  many  cases 
any  record  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus,  so  is  it  certain  that  the  first  and  third  evan- 
gelists have  distributed  quite  differently  the  material 
which  they  seem  to  have  derived  from  that  apostolic 
document.     Mention  need  only  be  made  of  the  exhor- 


GENEKAL  SURVEY  OE  THE  MINISTRY  103 

tation  against  anxiety  which  Matthew  places  in  the 
sermon  on  the  mount  (vi.  19-34),  and  which  Luke  has 
given  after  the  close  of  the  Galilean  activity  (xii.  22- 
31:).  It  is  possible  to  form  some  judgment  of  the  gen- 
eral relations  of  such  discourses  from  the  chaCracter  of 
their  contents,  but  in  the  absence  of  positive  statement 
by  the  evangelists  it  is  hopeless  to  seek  to  give  them  a 
more  definite  liistorical  setting.  A  topical  study  can 
consider  them  as  contributions  to  the  period  to  which 
they  belong,  while  a  chronological  study  would  be  lost 
in  uncertain  conjectures.  A  topical  study  may,  how- 
ever, disclose  the  fact  that  sequence  of  timo  was  iden- 
tical with  development  of  method.  This  is,  in  general, 
the  case  with  the  Galilean  ministry.  The  new  lesson 
which  Jesus  began  to  teach  after  the  confession  at 
Csesarea  Philippi  marked  the  supreme  turning  point 
in  his  whole  public  activity.  Before  that  crisis  the 
work  of  Jesus  was  a  constructive  preparation  for  the 
question  which  called  forth  Peter's  confession.  Sub- 
sequently his  work  was  that  of  making  ready  for  the 
end,  which  from  that  time  on  he  foretold.  As  has 
been  stated,  the  Galilean  ministry  is  the  stoiy  of  the 
first  three  gospels,  except  for  two  incidents  and  a  dis- 
course added  by  John,  The  visit  to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  (John  vii.  1  to  viii.  59)  stands  on  the 
border  between  the  work  in  Galilee  and  that  which 
followed.  It  was  one  of  Jesus'  many  attempts  to 
win  Jerusalem,  and  is  evidence  that  the  author  of 
the  fourth  gospel  —  either  because  of  special  interest 
in  the  capital,  or  because  of  superior  knowledge  of 
the  work  of  his  Master  in  Judea — gave  emphasis  to 
a  side  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  the  other  gospels 
have  neglected. 


104  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

110.  With  the  close  of  the  constructive  ministry 
in  Galilee,  the  account  of  Mark  (x.  1 ;  compare  Matt. 
xix.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  51)  turns  towards  Jerusalem  and  the 
cross.  The  journey  was  not  direct,  but  traversed 
Perea,  the  domain  of  Antipas  beyond  Jordan,  and 
was  accompanied  by  continued  ministry  of  teaching 
and  healing  (Mark  x.  1-52;  Matt.  xix.  1  to  xx.  34). 
It  is  at  this  point  that  Luke  has  inserted  the  long  sec- 
tion peculiar  to  his  gospel  (ix.  51  to  xviii.  14),  becom- 
ing again  parallel  with  Mark  as  Jesus  drew  near  to 
Jerusalem  (xviii.  15  to  xix.  28 ;  compare  Mark  x.  13- 
52).  Much  of  that  which  Luke  adds  gives  evidence 
that  in  all  probability  it  should  be  placed  before  the 
change  in  method  at  Cassarea  Philippi,  while  much  of 
it  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the  last  months  of  Jesus' 
life.  Since  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  is  reported 
with  considerable  fulness,  it  is  natural  in  a  study  of 
Jesus'  life  to  treat  that  journey  by  itself.  At  this 
point  John  contributes  important  additions  to  the 
record  (ix.  1  to  xi.  57)  showing  that  the  journey  was 
not  continuous,  but  was  interrupted  by  several  more 
or  less  hurried  visits  to  the  capital,  renewed  efforts  of 
Jesus  to  win  the  city. 

111.  With  the  final  arrival  in  Jerusalem  the  four 
gospels  come  together  in  a  record  of  the  last  days  and 
the  crucifixion  (Mark  xi.  1  to  xv.  47 ;  Matt.  xxi.  1  to 
xxvii.  66  ;  Luke  xix.  29  to  xxiii.  56 ;  John  xi.  55  to 
xix.  42).  The  evangelists,  in  their  accounts  of  the 
last  week,  seem  to  have  had  access  to  completer  and 
more  varied  information  than  for  any  other  part  of  the 
ministry.  This  causes  some  difficulties  in  constructing 
an  ordered  conception  of  the  events,  yet  it  greatly  adds 
to  the  fulness  of  our  knowledge.     It  is  easier,  therefore, 


GENERAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  MINISTRY  105 

to  consider  the  period  in  three  parts,  —  the  final  con- 
troversies in  Jerusalem,  the  Last  Supper,  and  the  be- 
trayal, trial,  and  crucifixion. 

112.  In  a  sense  the  resurrection  and  ascension  form 
the  conclusion  of  the  final  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and 
should  be  treated  with  the  last  week.  In  a  larger 
sense,  however,  they  form  the  culmination  of  the 
whole  ministry,  and  therefore  constitute  a  final  stage 
in  the  study  of  Jesus'  life.  At  this  point  the  record  of 
the  gospels  is  supplemented  by  the  first  chapter  of 
the  Acts  and  by  Paul's  concise  report  of  the  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Christ  (I.  Cor.  xv.  3-8).  The  va- 
rious accounts  exhibit  perplexing  independence  of 
each  other.  In  total  impression,  however,  they  agree, 
and  show  that  the  tragedy,  by  which  the  enemies  of 
Jesus  thought  to  end  his  career,  was  turned  into  signal 
triumph. 


OUTLINE   OF  EVENTS  IN  THE  EARLY  JUDEAN 
MINISTRY 

The  first  Passover  of  the  public  ministry :  Cleansing  of  the 
temple  —  John  ii.  13-22. 

Early  results  in  Jerusalem :  Discourse  with  Nicodemus  —  John 
ii.  23  to  iii.  15. 

Withdrawal  into  rural  parts  of  Judea  to  preach  and  baptize  — 
John  iii.  22-30;  iv.  1,2. 

Imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist  —  Matt.  iv.  12  ;  Mark  i.  14. 

Withdrawal  from  Judea  through  Samaria  —  John  iv.  1-42. 

Unlooked-for  welcome  in  Galilee  —  John  iv.  43-45. 

?  Second  sign  at  Cana  :  Cure  of  the  Nobleman's  son  —  John  iv. 
46-54  (see  sect,  a  41). 

[Retirement  at  Nazareth,  the  disciples  resuming  their  accus- 
tomed calling.  Inferred  from  Matt.  iv.  13 ;  Luke  iv.  31 ;  Matt, 
iv.  18-22  and  ||s.] 

Events  marked  1  should  possibly  be  given  a  different  place ;  ||s 
stands  for  "parallel  accounts;"  for  sections  marked  a  —  as  a  41  — see 
Appendix. 

II 

THE  EAELY  ^HNISTRY  IN  JUDEA 

113.  We  owe  to  the  fourth  gospel  our  knowledge  of 
the  fact  that  Jesus  began  his  general  ministry  in  Jeru- 
salem. The  silence  of  the  other  records  concerning 
this  beginning  cannot  discredit  the  testimony  of  John. 
For  these  other  records  themselves  indicate  in  various 
ways  that  Jesus  had  repeatedly  sought  to  win  Jeru- 
salem before  his  final  visit  at  the  end  of  his  life  (com- 
pare Luke  xiii.  34 ;  Matt,  xxiii.  37).  Moreover,  the 
fourth  gospel  is  confirmed  by  the  probability,  rising 


THE  FIRST  PASSOVER  IN  JERUSALEM  107 

almost  to  necessity,  that  such  a  mission  as  Jesus  con- 
ceived his  to  be  must  seek  first  to  win  the  leaders  of 
his  people.  The  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  the  centre 
of  worship,  drawing  all  Jews  sooner  or  later  to  itself 
—  even  as  Jesus  in  early  youth  was  accustomed  to  go 
thither  at  the  time  of  feasts  (Luke  ii.  41).  Worship- 
pers of  God  throughout  the  world  prayed  with  their 
faces  towards  Jerusalem  (Dan.  vi.  10).  Moreover,  at 
Jerusalem  the  chief  of  the  scribes,  as  well  as  the  chief 
of  the  priests,  were  to  be  found.  Compared  with 
Jerusalem  all  other  places  were  provincial  and  of  small 
influence.  A  Messiah,  who  had  not  from  the  outset 
given  up  hope  of  Avinning  the  capital,  cannot  have 
long  delayed  his  effort  to  fmd  a  following  there. 

114.  Arriving  at  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover  season, 
in  the  early  spring,  Jesus  remained  in  Judea  until  the 
following  December  (John  iv.  35).  Evidently  the 
record  which  John  gives  of  these  months  is  most  frag- 
mentary, and  from  his  own  statement  (xx.  30,  31)  it 
seems  highly  probable  that  it  is  one  sided,  emphasiz- 
ing those  events  and  teachings  in  which  Jesus  dis- 
closed more  or  less  clearly  his  claim  to  be  the  Messiah. 
Doubtless  the  full  record  would  show  a  much  closer 
similarity  between  this  early  work  in  Judea  and  that 
later  conducted  in  Galilee  than  a  comparison  of  John 
with  the  other  gospels  would  suggest ;  yet  it  is  evident 
that  Jesus  opened  his  ministry  in  Jerusalem  with 
an  unrestrained  frankness  that  is  not  found  later  in 
Galilee. 

115.  It  is  a  mistake  to  think  of  the  cleansing  of 
the  temple  as  a  distinct  Messianic  manifesto.  The 
market  in  the  temple  was  a  licensed  affront  to  spiritual 
religion.     It  found  its  excuse  for  being  in  the  require- 


108  THE  LITE   OF  JESUS 

ment  that  worshippers  offer  to  the  priests  for  sacri- 
fice animals  levitically  clean  and  acceptable,  and  that 
gifts  for  the  temple  treasury  be  made  in  no  coin  other 
than  the  sacred  ''  shekel  of  the  sanctuary."  The  chief 
priests  appreciated  the  convenience  which  worshippers 
coming  from  a  distance  would  find  if  they  could 
obtain  all  the  means  of  worship  within  the  temple 
enclosure  itself.  The  hierarchy  or  its  representatives 
seem  also  to  have  appreciated  the  opportunity  to 
charge  good  prices  for  the  accommodation  so  afforded. 
The  result  was  the  intrusion  of  the  spirit  of  the  mar- 
ket-place, with  all  its  disputes  and  haggling,  into  the 
place  set  apart  for  worship.  In  fact,  the  only  part  of 
the  temple  open  to  Gentiles  who  might  wish  to  wor- 
ship Israel's  God  was  filled  with  distraction,  unseemly 
strife,  and  extortion  (compare  Mark  xi.  17).  Such 
despite  done  the  sanctity  of  God's  house  must  have 
outraged  the  pious  sense  of  many  a  devout  Israelite. 
There  is  no  doubt  of  what  an  Isaiah  or  a  Micah  would 
have  said  and  done  in  such  a  situation.  This  is  exactly 
what  Jesus  did.  His  act  was  the  assumption  of  a  full 
prophetic  authority.  In  itself  considered  it  was  noth- 
ing more.  In  his  expulsion  of  the  traders  he  had  the 
conscience  of  the  people  for  his  ally.  There  is  no  need 
to  tliink  of  any  use  of  miraculous  power.  His  moral 
earnestness,  coupled  with  the  underlying  consciousness 
on  the  part  of  the  traders  themselves  that  they  had  no 
business  in  God's  house,  readily  explains  the  confusion 
and  departure  of  the  intruders.  Even  those  who  chal- 
lenged Jesus'  conduct  did  not  venture  to  defend  the 
presence  of  the  market  in  the  temple.  They  only  de- 
manded that  Jesus  show  his  warrant  for  disturbing  a 
condition  of  things  authorized  by  the  priests. 


THE   CLEANSING   OF  THE  TEMPLE  109 

116.  The  temple  cleansing  is  recorded  in  the  other 
gospels  at  the  end  of  Jesus'  ministry,  just  before  the 
hostility  of  the  Jews  culminated  in  his  condemna- 
tion and  death.  Inasmuch  as  these  gospels  give  no 
account  of  a  ministry  by  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  before 
the  last  week  of  his  life,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  this 
event  came  to  be  associated  by  them  with  the  only 
Jerusalem  sojourn  which  they  record.  The  definite 
place  given  to  the  event  in  John,  together  with  the 
seeming  necessity  that  Jesus  should  condemn  such 
authorized  affront  to  the  very  idea  of  worship,  mark 
this  cleansing  as  the  inaugural  act  of  Jesus'  ministry 
of  spiritual  religion,  rather  than  as  a  final  stern  re- 
buke closing  his  effort  to  win  his  people.  Against  the 
conclusion  commonly  held  that  Jesus  cleansed  the 
temple  both  at  the  opening  and  at  the  close  of  his 
course  is  the  extreme  improbability  that  the  traders 
would  have  been  caught  twice  in  the  same  way.  The 
event  fits  in  closely  with  the  story  of  the  last  w^eek,  be- 
cause it  actually  led  to  the  beginning  of  opposition  in 
Jerusalem  to  the  prophet  from  Galilee.  At  the  first 
the  opposition  was  doubtless  of  a  scornful  sort.  Later 
it  grew  in  bitterness  when  it  saw  how  Jesus  was  able 
to  arouse  a  popular  enthusiasm  that  seemed  to  threaten 
the  stability  of  existing  conditions. 

117.  The  reply  of  Jesus  to  the  challenge  of  his  au- 
thority for  his  high-handed  act  shows  that  he  offered  it 
to  the  people  as  an  invitation ;  he  would  lead  them  to  a 
higher  idea  and  practice  of  worship  (compare  John  iv. 
21-24).  When  they  demanded  the  warrant  for  his  act, 
he  saw  that  they  were  not  ready  to  follow  him,  and  could 
not  appreciate  the  only  warrant  he  needed  for  his  course. 
He  cleansed  the  temple  because  they  were  destroying 


110  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

it  as  a  place  where  men  could  Avorship  God  in  spirit. 
In  reply  to  the  challenge,  he  who  later  taught  the 
Samaritan  woman  that  the  worship  of  God  is  not  de- 
pendent on  any  place  however  sacred,  answered  that 
they  might  finish  their  work  and  destroy  the  temple  as 
a  house  of  God,  yet  he  would  speedily  re-establish  a 
true  means  of  approach  to  the  Most  High  for  the  souls  of 
men.  He  clothed  his  reply  in  a  figurative  dress,  as  he 
was  often  wont  to  do  in  his  teaching,  —  "  Destroy  this 
temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  To  his 
unsympathetic  hearers  it  must  have  been  completely 
enigmatic.  Even  the  disciples  did  not  catch  its  mean- 
ing until  after  the  resurrection  had  taught  them  that 
in  their  Master  a  new  chapter  in  God's  dealing  with 
men  had  begun. 

118.  The  unreadiness  of  the  Jewish  leaders  to 
receive  the  only  kind  of  message  he  had  to  offer  pro- 
duced in  Jesus  a  decided  reserve.  He  did  not  lack 
a  certain  kind  of  success  in  Jerusalem.  His  cures  of 
the  sick  won  him  many  followers  who  seemed  ready 
to  believe  almost  anything  of  him.  But  the  attitude 
taken  by  the  leaders  made  it  evident  that  Jesus  must 
make  disciples  who  should  understand  in  some  meas- 
ure at  least  his  idea  of  God's  kingdom,  and,  under- 
standing, must  be  ready  to  be  loyal  to  it  through  good 
report  and  evil.  For  the  position  taken  by  the  leaders 
of  the  people  had  an  ominous  significance.  It  could 
mean  but  one  thing  for  Jesus,  —  unrelenting  conflict. 
If  they  could  not  be  won,  they  who  would  so  legalize 
the  desecration  of  God's  house  would  not  hesitate  at 
any  extreme  in  opposing  his  messenger.  This  possi- 
bility confronted  Jesus  at  the  very  outset;  therefore 
he  held  the  popular  enthusiasm  in  check,  knowing  that 


THE   DISCOURSE   WITH  NICODEMUS  111 

as  yet  it  had  little  of  that  kind  of  faith  which  could 
endure  seeming  defeat. 

119.  One  of  those  who  were  drawn  to  him,  however, 
gave  Jesus  opportunity  to  lay  aside  his  reserve  and 
speak  clearly  of  the  truth  he  came  to  publish.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  Jewish  sanhedrin,  a  rabbi  apparently  held 
in  high  regard  in  Jerusalem.  While  his  associates  were 
dismissing  the  claims  of  Jesus  with  a  wave  of  the  hand, 
Nicodemus  sought  out  the  new  teacher  by  night,  and 
showed  liis  desire  to  learn  what  Jesus  held  to  be  truth 
concerning  God's  kingdom.  Jesus  first  reminded  the 
teacher  of  Israel  of  the  old  doctrine  of  the  prophets, 
that  Israel  must  find  a  new  heart  before  God's  kingdom 
can  come  (Jer.  xxxi.  31-34 ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27),  and 
then  declared  that  the  heavenly  truth  which  God  now 
would  reveal  to  men  is  that  all  can  have  the  needed 
new  life  as  freely  as  the  plague-stricken  Israelites 
found  relief  when  Moses  lifted  up  the  brazen  serpent. 
This  conversation  serves  to  introduce  the  evangelist's 
interpretation  of  Jesus  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God 
sent  in  love  to  redeem  the  world  (John  iii.  16-21). 

120.  John's  record  suggests  that  Jesus  left  Jerusalem 
shortly  after  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus.  His 
work  there  was  not  without  success,  for  Nicodemus 
seems  to  have  been  henceforth  his  loyal  advocate  (com- 
pare John  vii.  50-52 ;  xix.  39)  ;  and  it  may  be  that  at 
the  time  of  this  sojourn  he  won  the  hearts  of  his  friends 
in  Bethany,  for  the  first  picture  the  gospels  give  of  this 
household  seems  to  presuppose  a  somewhat  intimate 
relation  of  Jesus  to  the  family  (Luke  x.  38-42).  It 
would  be  idle  to  speculate  whether  it  was  at  this  time 
or  later  that  he  became  acquainted  with  Joseph  of 
Arimathea,  or  the  friends  who  during  the  last  week  of 


112  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

his  life  showed  him  hospitality  (Mark  xi.   2-6 ;  xiv. 
12-16). 

121.  For  a  time  after  his  withdrawal  from  Jerusalem 
he  lingered  in  Judea,  carrying  on  a  simple  ministry  of 
preparation  like  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  In  this 
way  the  summer  and  early  autumn  seem  to  have  passed, 
Jesus  growing  more  popular  as  a  prophet  than  John 
himself  had  been.  The  fact  that  Jesus'  disciples  ad- 
ministered baptism  in  connection  with  his  work  roused 
the  jealousy  of  some  of  John's  followers,  and  attracted 
again  the  attention  of  Jerusalem  to  the  new  activity  of 
the  bold  disturber  of  the  temple  market.  John's  dis- 
ciples complained  to  him  of  Jesus'  rivalry,  and  received 
his  self-effacing  confession,  "  He  must  increase,  I 
must  decrease."  The  Pharisees,  on  the  other  hand, 
made  Jesus  feel  that  further  work  in  Judea  was  for  the 
time  unwise,  and  he  withdrew  into  Galilee  for  retire- 
ment, since  ^'  a  prophet  has  no  honor  in  his  own  country  " 
(John  iv.  1-3,  44).  Baffled  in  his  first  effort  to  win 
his  people,  this  journey  back  from  the  region  of  the 
holy  city  must  have  been  one  of  no  little  sadness  for 
Jesus.  Some  urgency  for  haste  led  him  by  the  direct 
road  through  despised  Samaria.  A  seemingly  chance 
conversation  with  a  woman  at  Jacob's  well,  where  he 
was  resting  at  noonday,  gave  him  an  opportunity  for 
ministr}^  which  was  more  ingenuously  received  than 
any  which  he  had  been  able  to  render  in  Judea ;  and  to 
this  woman  he  declared  himself  even  more  plainly  than 
to  Nicodemus,  and  preached  to  her  that  spiritual  idea  of 
worship  which  he  had  sought  to  enforce  by  cleansing 
Jerusalem's  temple.  Samaria  was  so  isolated  from  all 
Jewish  interest  that  Jesus  felt  no  need  for  reserve  in 
this  "  strange  "  land.     The  few  days  spent  there  must 


THE  ARREST  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  113 

have  been  peculiarly  welcome  to  his  heart,  fresh  from 
rejection  in  Judea. 

122.  One  reason  why  he  wished  to  hasten  from  Ju- 
dea seems  to  have  been  his  knowledge  of  the  hostile 
movement  which  was  making  against  John  the  Baptist. 
Either  before  or  soon  after  Jesus  started  for  Galilee 
Herod  had  arrested  John,  ostensibly  as  a  measure  of 
public  safety  owing  to  John's  undue  popularity  (Jos. 
Ant.  xviii.  5.  2).  Herod  may  have  been  encouraged 
to  take  this  step  by  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees  to 
the  plain-spoken  prophet  of  the  desert  (see  John  iv. 
1-3).  The  fourth  gospel  leaves  its  readers  to  infer 
that  the  imprisonment  took  ]Dlace  somewhere  about 
this  time  (compare  iii.  24  and  v.  35),  while  the  other 
gospels  unite  in  giving  this  arrest  as  the  occasion  for 
Jesus'  withdrawal  into  Galilee. 

123.  Arrived  in  Galilee,  Jesus  seems  to  have  returned 
to  his  home  at  Nazareth,  while  his  disciples  went  back 
to  their  customary  occupations,  until  he  summoned 
them  again  to  join  him  in  a  new  ministry  (see  sect.  125). 
John  assigns  to  this  time  the  cure  of  a  nobleman's  son. 
The  father  sought  out  Jesus  at  Cana,  having  left  liis 
son  sick  at  Capernaum.  At  first  Jesus  apparently  re- 
pelled his  approach,  even  as  he  had  dealt  with  seekers 
after  marvels  at  Jerusalem ;  but  on  hearing  the  father's 
cry-  of  need  and  trust,  he  at  once  spoke  the  word  of 
healing.  This  event  is  in  so  many  ways  a  duplicate  of 
the  cure  of  a  centurion's  servant  recorded  in  Matthew 
and  Luke,  that  to  many  it  seems  but  another  version 
of  the  same  incident.  Considering  the  variations  in 
the  story  reported  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  it  is  clearly 
not  possible  to  prove  that  John  tells  of  a  different  case. 
Yet  the  simple  fact  of  similarity  of  some  details  in  two 


114  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

events  should  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  their  still 
being  quite  distinct.  The  reception  which  Jesus  gave 
the  two  requests  for  help  is  very  different,  and  the 
case  reported  in  John  is  in  keeping  with  the  attitude 
of  Jesus  before  he  began  his  new  ministiy  in  Galilee. 
On  his  arrival  in  Galilee  he  wished  to  avoid  a  mere 
wonder  faith  begotten  of  the  enthusiasm  he  excited  in 
Jerusalem,  yet  this  wish  yielded  at  once  when  a  genu- 
ine need  sought  relief  at  his  hands. 

124.  The  apparent  result  of  this  first  activity 
in  Judea  was  disappointment  and  failure.  He  had 
won  no  considerable  following  in  the  capital.  He 
had  definitely  excited  the  jealous}^  and  opposition  of 
the  leading  men  of  his  nation.  Even  such  popular 
enthusiasm  as  had  followed  his  mighty  works  was  of 
a  sort  that  Jesus  could  not  encourage.  The  situation 
in  Judea  had  at  length  become  so  nearly  untenable 
that  he  decided  to  withdraw  into  seclusion  in  Galilee, 
where,  as  a  prophet,  he  could  be  "  without  honor." 
He  had  gone  to  Jerusalem  eager  to  begin  there,  where 
God  should  have  had  readiest  service,  the  ministry  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Challenge,  cold  criticism,  and 
superficial  faith  were  the  results,  A  new  beginning 
must  be  made  on  other  lines  in  other  places.  Mean- 
while Jesus  retired  to  his  home  and  his  followers  to 
theirs. 


OUTLINE  OF  EVENTS  IN  THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY 
(CHAPTERS  III.   AND  lY.) 

The  imprisonment  of  John  and  the  withdrawal   of  Jesus   into 

Galilee  — Matt.  iv.  12-17;  Mark  i.  14,  15;  Luke  iv.  14,  15. 
Removal    from    Nazareth    to    Capernaum  —  Matt.    iv.    13-16 ; 

Luke  iv.  31». 
The  call  of  Simon  and  Andrew,  James   and  John  —  Matt.  iv. 

18-22  ;  Mark  i.  16-20  ;  Luke  v.  1-11. 
First  work  in  Capernaum — Matt.  viii.  14-17;    Mark  i.  21-34; 

Luke  iv.  31-41. 
First  circuit  of  Galilee  —  Matt.  iv.  23  ;  viii.  2-4  ;  Mark  i.  35-45; 

Luke  iv.  42-44;  v.  12-16. 
Cure  of  a  paralytic  in  Capernaum  —  Matt.    ix.   2-8 ;    Mark   ii. 

1-12  ;  Luke  v.  17-26. 
The  call  of  Matthew  —  Matt.  ix.  9-13;  Mark  ii.  13-17;  Luke 

V.  27-32. 
?The  question  about  fasting —  Matt.  ix.  14-17;  Mark  ii.  18-22  ; 

Luke  V.  33-39  (see  sects.  47  ;  a  54). 
?  Sabbath   cure   at  Jerusalem  at  the   unnamed  feast  —  John  v. 

1-47  (see  sect,  a  53). 
?The  Sabbath  controversy  in  the  Galilean  grain  fields  —  Matt. 

xii.  1-8  ;  Mark  ii.  23-28  ;  Luke  vi.  1-5  (see  sects.  47  ;  a  54). 
?  Another    Sabbath    controversy :    cure   of    a  withered  hand  — 

Matt.  xii.  9-14;  Mark  iii.  1-6;  Luke  vi.  6-11  (see  sects.  47 

A  54). 
Jesus  followed  by  multitudes  from  all  parts  —  Matt,  iv.  23-25 

xii.  15-21 ;  Mark  iii.  7-12 ;  Luke  vi.  17-19. 
The  choosing  of  the  twelve  —  Matt.  x.  2-4 ;   Mark  iii.  13-19^ 

Luke  vi.  12-19. 
The  sermon  on  the  mount  —  Matt.  v.  1  to  viii.  1 ;  Luke  vi.  20 

to  vii.  1  (see  sect,  a  55). 
The  cure  of  a  centurion's  servant  —  Matt.  viii.  5-13 ;   Luke  vii- 


116  THE   LITE   OF   JESUS 

The  restoration  of  the  widow's  son  at  Nain  —  Luke  vii.  11-17. 
The  message  from  John  in  prison  —  Matt.  xi.  2-19 ;  Luke  vii. 

18-35. 
The  anointing  of  Jesus  by  a  sinful  woman  —  Luke  vii.  36-50. 
The  companions  of  Jesus  on  his  second  circuit  of  GaUlee  —  Luke 

viii.  1-3. 
Cure  of   a    demoniac    in    Capernaum    and    blasphemy   by   the 

Pharisees  — Matt.  xii.    22-45;    Mark    iii.  19^-30;    Luke   xi. 

14-36. 
The  true  kindred  of  Jesus  —Matt.  xii.  46-50  ;  Mark  iii.  31-35; 

Luke  viii.  19-21. 
The  parables  by  the  sea— Matt.  xiii.  1-53;   Mark  iv.    1-34; 

Luke  viii.  4-18  (see  sect.  A  5G). 
The  tempest   stilled  —  Matt.  viii.  18,  23-27;   Mark  iv.    35-41; 

Luke  viii.  22-25. 
Cure  of  the   Gadarene  demoniac  —  Matt.  viii.  28-34;   Mark  v. 

1-20  ;  Luke  viii.  26-39. 
The  restoration  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  and  cure  of  an  invalid 

woman— Matt.   ix.    1,    18-26;  Mark   v.    21-43;    Luke  viii. 

40-56. 
Cure  of  blind  and  dumb  —  Matt.  ix.  27-34. 
Rejection  at  Nazareth  —  Matt.  xiii.  54-58  ;  Mark  vi.  1-6* ;  Luke 

iv.  16-30  (see  sect,  a  52). 
Third  circuit  of  Galilee  —  Matt.  ix.  35  ;  Mark  vi.  6^ 
The  mission   of  the  twelve  —  Matt.  ix.  36  to  xi.  1;   Mark   vi. 

7-13  ;  Luke  ix.  1-6  (see  sect,  a  57). 
The  death  of  John  the   Baptist  —  Matt.   xiv.  1-12 ;  Mark  vi. 

14-29  ;  Luke  ix.  7-9. 
Withdrawal  of  Jesus  across  the  sea  and  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand—Matt, xiv.  13-23;   Mark  vi.  30-46;  Luke  ix.    10-17; 

John  vi.  1-15. 
Return  to  Capernaum,  Jesus  walking  on  the  water  —  Matt.  xiv. 

24-36;  Mark  vi.  47-56  ;  John  vi.  16-21. 
Teaching  about  the  Bread  of  Life  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum 

—  John  vi.  22-71  (see  sect,  a  59). 
Controversy  concerning   tradition:   handwashing,   etc.  —  Matt. 

XV.  1-20  ;  Mark  vii.  1-23. 
Withdrawal  to  regions  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  :  the  Syrophoenician 

woman's  daughter  —  Matt.  xv.  21-28 ;  Mark  vii.  24-30. 


OUTLINE  OF  EVENTS  IN  THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY     117 

Return  through  Decapolis  —  Matt.  xv.  29-31 ;  Mark  vii.  31-37. 
?The  feeding  of   the  four   thousand  —  Matt.  xv.  32-38;   Mark 

viii.  1-9  (see  sect,  a  58). 
Pharisaic  challenge  in  Galilee,  and  warning  against  the  leaven  of 

the  Pharisees  — Matt.  xv.  39  to  xvi.  12  ;  Mark  viii.  10-21. 
Cure  of  blind  man  near  Bethsaida  —  Mark  viii.  22-26. 
Peter's  confession  of  Jesus  as  Christ  near  Caesarea  Philippi  — 

Matt.  xvi.  13-20  ;  Mark  viii.  27-30  ;  Luke  ix.  18-21. 
The  new  lesson,  that  the  Christ  must  die  —  Matt.  xvi.  21-28; 

Mark  viii.  31  to  ix.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  22-27. 
The   transfiguration  —  Matt.  xvii.  1-13  ;   Mark  ix.  2-13 ;  Luke 

ix.  28-36. 
Cure  of  the  epileptic  boy  —  Matt.  xvii.   14-20;  Mark  ix.  14-29; 

Luke  ix.  37-43\ 
Second  prediction  of  approaching  death  and  resurrection  —  Matt. 

xvii.  22,  23  ;  Mark  ix.  30-32 ;  Luke  ix.  43''-45. 
Return  to    Capernaum  :    the   temple   tax  —  Matt.    xvii.  24-27 ; 

Mark  ix.  33\ 
Teachings  concerning   humility  and  forgiveness  —  Matt,  xviii. 

1-35  ;  Mark  ix.  33-50  ;  Luke  ix.  46-50. 
Visit  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  —  John 

vii.  1-52  ;  viii.  12-59  (see  sect,  a  60). 
?The  woman  taken  in  adultery  —  John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11  (see 

sect.  163). 

The  following  probably  belong  to  the  Galilean  ministry  before 
the  confession  at  Csesarea  Philippi  (see  sect.  168)  :  — 

The  disciples  taught  to  pray  —  Matt.  vi.  9-15;  vii.  7-11;  Luke 

xi.  1-13. 
The  cure  of  an  infirm  woman  on  the  Sabbath  —  Luke  xiii.  10-17. 
Two  parables :    mustard-seed   and   leaven  —  Matt.    xiii.  31-33  ; 

Luke  xiii.  18-21  (see  sect,  a  56). 
The  parable  of  the  rich  fool  —  Luke  xii.  13-21. 
Cure  on  a  Sabbath  and  teaching  at  a  Pharisee's  table  —  Luke  xiv. 

1-24. 
Five  parables  —  Luke  xv.  1  to  xvi.  31. 
Certain  disconnected  teachings  —  Luke  xvii.  1-4, 


Ill 

THE  JNONISTRY   IN   GALILEE  —  ITS  AIM  AND  ISIETHOD 

125.  The  work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  which  is  the 
principal  theme  of  the  first  three  gospels,  began  with 
a  removal  from  Nazareth  to  CaiDernaum,  and  the  call- 
ing of  four  fishermen  to  be  his  constant  followers. 
The  ready  obedience  which  Simon  and  Andrew  and 
James  and  John  gave  to  this  call  is  an  interesting 
evidence  that  they  did  not  first  come  to  know  Jesus  at 
the  time  of  this  summons.  The  narrative  presupposes 
some  such  earlier  association  as  is  reported  in  John, 
followed  by  a  temporary  return  to  their  old  homes  and 
occupations,  while  Jesus  sought  seclusion  after  his 
work  in  Judea.  The  first  evangelist  has  most  vividly 
indicated  the  development  of  the  Galilean  ministry, 
directing  attention  to  two  points  of  beginning,  —  the 
beginning  of  Jesus'  preaching  of  the  kingdom  (Matt, 
iv.  17)  and  the  beginning  of  his  predictions  of  his  own 
sufferings  and  death  (xvi.  21).  Between  these  two 
beginnings  lies  the  ministry  of  Jesus  to  the  enthu- 
siastic multitudes,  the  second  of  them  marking  his 
choice  of  a  more  restricted  audience  and  a  less  popular 
message.  Within  the  first  of  these  periods  two  events 
mark  epochs,  —  the  mission  of  the  twelve  (Matt.  ix. 
36;  X.  1)  to  preach  the  coming  kingdom  of  God  and 
to  multiply  Jesus'  ministry  of  healing,  and  the  feed- 
ing of  the  five  thousand  when  the  popular  enthusiasm 


THE  MINISTRY  IN  GALILEE  119 

reached  its  climax  (John  vi.  14,  15).  These  events 
fall  not  far  apart,  and  mark  two  different  phases  of 
the  same  stage  of  development  in  his  work.  The 
first  is  emphasized  by  Matthew,  the  second  by  John; 
both  help  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  narrative 
which  Mark  has  furnished  to  the  other  gospels  for 
their  story  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  The  table  at  the 
head  of  this  chapter  indicates  in  outline  the  probable 
succession  of  events  in  the  Galilean  j)eriod.  The 
order  adopted  is  that  of  Mark,  supplemented  by  the 
other  gospels.  Luke's  additions  are  inserted  in  his 
order  where  there  is  not  some  reason  for  believing  that 
he  himself  disregarded  the  exact  sequence  of  events. 
Thus  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  is  placed  late,  as  in 
Mark.  Much  of  the  material  in  the  long  section  pecu- 
liar to  Luke  is  assigned  in  general  to  this  Galilean 
period,  since  all  knowledge  of  its  precise  location  in 
time  and  place  has  been  lost  for  us,  as  it  not  unlikely 
was  for  Luke.  Although  Matthew  is  the  gospel  giv- 
ing the  clearest  general  view  of  the  Galilean  work,  it 
shows  the  greatest  disarrangement  of  details,  and  aids 
but  little  in  determining  the  sequence  of  events.  The 
material  from  that  gospel  is  assigned  j)lace  in  accord- 
ance with  such  hints  as  are  discoverable  in  parallel  or 
associated  parts  of  Mark  or  Luke.  Of  John's  con- 
tributions one  —  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes  —  is 
clearly  located  by  its  identity  with  a  narrative  found 
in  all  the  other  gospels.  The  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  the 
unnamed  feast  can  be  only  tentatively  placed. 

126.  Viewing  this  gospel  story  as  a  whole,  the 
parallel  development  of  popular  enthusiasm  and  official 
hostility  at  once  attracts  attention.  Jesus'  first  cures 
in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  roused  the  interest  and 


120  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

wonder  of  the  multitudes  to  such  an  extent  that  he 
felt  constrained  to  withdraw  to  other  towns.  On  his 
return  to  Capernaum  he  was  so  beset  with  crowds  that 
the  friends  of  the  paralytic  could  get  at  him  only  by 
breaking  up  the  roof.  It  was  when  Jesus  found  him- 
self followed  by  multitudes  from  all  parts  of  the  land 
that  he  selected  twelve  of  his  disciples  "that  they 
might  be  with  him  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth 
to  preach,"  and  addressed  to  them  in  the  hearing  of 
the  multitudes  the  exacting,  although  unspeakably 
winsome  teaching  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  This 
condition  of  things  continued  even  after  Herod  had 
killed  John  the  Baptist,  for  when  Jesus,  having  heard 
of  John's  fate,  sought  retirement  with  his  disciples 
across  the  sea  of  Galilee,  he  was  robbed  of  his  seclu- 
sion by  throngs  who  flocked  to  him  to  be  healed  and 
to  hear  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

127.  The  popular  enthusiasm  was  not  indifferent  to 
the  question  who  this  new  teacher  might  be.  At  first 
Jesus  impressed  the  people  by  his  authoritative  teach- 
ing and  cures.  After  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son 
at  Nain  the  popular  feeling  found  a  more  definite 
declaration,  —  "a  great  prophet  has  risen  up  among 
us."  The  cure  of  a  demoniac  in  Capernaum  raised 
the  further  incredulous  query,  "Can  this  be  the  Son 
of  David?"  The  notion  that  he  might  be  the  Mes- 
siah seems  to  have  gained  acceptance  more  and  more 
as  Jesus'  popularity  grew,  for  at  the  time  of  the  feed- 
ing of  the  multitudes  the  enthusiasm  burst  into  a 
flame  of  determination  to  force  him  to  undertake  the 
work  for  which  he  was  so  eminently  fitted,  but  from 
which  for  some  inexplicable  reason  he  seemed  to 
shrink  (John  vi.  15). 


PHARISAIC   OPPOSITION  121 

128.  Parallel  with  the  growth  of  popular  enthu- 
siasm, and  in  part  because  of  it,  the  religious  leaders 
early  assumed  and  consistently  maintained  an  attitude 
of  opposition.  The  gospels  connect  the  critics  of 
Jesus  now  and  again  with  the  Pharisees  of  the  capital 
—  the  Galilean  Pharisees  being  represented  as  more  or 
less  friendly.  At  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  in 
Capernaum  even  the  Sabbath  cure  in  the  synagogue 
passed  unchallenged;  but  on  the  return  from  his  first 
excursion  to  other  towns,  Jesus  found  critics  in  his 
audience  (Luke  connects  them  directly  with  Jerusa- 
lem). From  time  to  time  such  censors  as  these  ob- 
jected to  the  forgiveness  by  Jesus  of  the  sins  of  the 
paralytic  (Mark  ii.  6,  7),  criticised  his  social  relations 
with  outcasts  like  the  publicans  (Mark  ii.  16),  took 
offence  at  his  carelessness  of  the  Sabbath  tradition  in 
his  instruction  of  his  disciples  (Mark  ii.  24),  and 
sought  to  turn  the  tide  of  rising  popular  enthusiasm  by 
ascribing  his  power  to  cure  to  a  league  with  the  devil 
(Mark  iii.  22).  Baffled  in  one  charge,  they  would  turn 
to  another,  until,  after  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes, 
Jesus  showed  his  complete  disregard  of  all  they  held 
most  dear,  replying  to  a  criticism  of  his  disciples 
for  carelessness  of  the  ritual  of  hand-washing  by  an 
authoritative  setting  aside  of  the  whole  body  of  their 
traditions,  as  well  as  of  the  Levitical  ceremonial  of 
clean  and  unclean  meats  (Mark  vii.  1-23). 

129.  The  wonder  is,  not  that  popular  enthusiasm 
for  Jesus  was  great,  but  that  it  was  so  hesitating  in  its 
judgment  about  him.  The  province  which  provided 
a  following  to  Judas  of  Galilee  a  generation  earlier 
than  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  which  under 
John  of  Gischala  furnished  the  chief  support  to  the 


122  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

revolt  against  Rome  a  generation  later,  could  have  been 
excited  to  uncontrollable  passion  by  the  simple  idea 
that  a  leader  was  present  who  could  be  made  to  head  a 
movement  for  Jewish  liberty.  But  there  was  some- 
thing about  Jesus  which  made  it  impossible  to  think 
of  him  as  such  a  Messiah.  He  was  much  more  moved 
by  sin  lurking  within  than  by  wrong  inflicted  from 
without.  He  looked  for  God's  kingdom,  as  did  the 
Zealots,  but  he  looked  for  it  within  the  heart  more 
than  in  outward  circumstances.  Even  the  dreamers 
among  the  people,  who  were  as  unready  as  Jesus  for 
any  uprising  against  Rome,  and  who  waited  for  God 
to  show  his  own  hand  in  judgment,  found  in  Jesus  — 
come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost  —  some- 
thing so  contradictory  of  their  idea  of  the  celestial 
judge  that  they  could  not  easily  think  of  him  as  a 
Messiah.  Jesus  was  a  puzzle  to  the  people.  They 
were  sure  that  he  was  a  prophet;  but  if  at  any  time 
some  were  tempted  to  query,  "  Can  this  be  the  Son  of 
David?"  the  incredulous  folk  expected  ever  a  nega- 
tive reply. 

130.  This  was  as  Jesus  wished  it  to  be.  An  unrea- 
soning enthusiasm  could  only  hinder  his  work.  When 
his  early  cures  in  Capernaum  stirred  the  ardent  feel- 
ings of  the  multitudes,  he  took  occasion  to  withdraw 
to  other  towns  and  allow  popular  feeling  to  cool. 
When  later  he  found  himself  pressed  upon  by  crowds 
from  all  quarters  of  the  land,  by  the  sermon  on  the 
mount  he  set  them  thinking  on  strange  and  highly 
spiritual  things,  far  removed  from  the  thoughts  of 
Zealots  and  apocalyptic  dreamers. 

131.  The  manifest  contradiction  of  popular  Mes- 
sianic ideas  which  Jesus  presented  in  his  own  person 


THE  CAUTION  OF  JESUS  123 

usually  served  to  check  undue  ardor  as  long  as  he  was 
present.  But  when  some  demoniac  proclanned  the 
high  station  of  Jesus,  and  thus  seemed  to  the  people 
to  give  supernatural  testimony ;  or  when  some  one  in 
need  sought  him  apart  from  the  multitudes,  Jesus 
frequently  enjoined  silence.  These  injunctions  of 
silence  are  enigmas  until  they  are  viewed  as  a  part 
of  Jesus'  effort  to  keep  control  of  popular  feeling.  In 
his  absence  the  people  might  dwell  on  his  power  and 
easily  come  to  imagine  him  to  be  what  he  was  not 
and  could  not  be.  Jesus  was  able  by  these  means  to 
restrain  unthinking  enthusiasm  until  the  multitudes 
whom  he  fed  on  the  east  side  of  the  sea  determined 
to  force  him  to  do  their  will  as  a  Messiah.  Then  he 
refused  to  follow  where  they  called,  and  that  hap- 
pened which  would  doubtless  have  happened  at  an 
earlier  time  but  for  Jesus'  caution,  —  the  popular 
enthusiasm  subsided,  and  his  active  work  with  the 
common  people  was  at  an  end.  But  he  had  held  off 
this  crisis  until  there  were  a  few  who  did  not  follow 
the  popular  defection,  but  rather  clung  to  him  from 
whom  they  had  heard  the  words  of  eternal  life  (John 
vi.  68). 

132.  Jesus'  caution  brings  to  light  one  aspect  of  his 
aim  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  —  he  sought  to  win  ac- 
ceptance for  the  truth  he  proclaimed.  His  message  as 
reported  in  the  synoptic  gospels  was  the  near  approach 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Any  such  proclamation  was 
sure  of  eager  hearing.  At  first  he  seems  to  have  been 
content  to  gather  and  interest  the  multitudes  by  this 
preaching  and  the  works  which  accompanied  it.  But 
he  early  took  occasion  to  state  his  ideas  in  the  hearing 
of  the  multitudes,  and  in  terms  so  simple,  so  concerned 


124  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

with  every-day  life,  so  exacting  as  respects  conduct, 
and  so  lacking  in  the  customary  glowing  picture  of  the 
future,  that  the  people  could  not  mistake  such  a 
teacher  for  a  simple  fulfiller  of  their  ideas.  In  this 
early  sermon  in  effect,  and  later  with  increasing  plain- 
ness, he  set  forth  his  doctrine  of  a  kingdom  of  heaven 
coming  not  with  observation,  present  actually  among 
a  people  who  knew  it  not,  like  a  seed  growing  secretly 
in  the  earth,  or  leaven  c^uietly  leavening  a  lump  of 
meal.  By  word  and  deed,  in  sermon  and  by  parable, 
he  insisted  on  this  simple  and  every-day  conception  of 
God's  rule  among  men.  With  Pharisee,  Zealot,  and 
dreamer,  he  held  that  "the  best  is  yet  to  be,"  yet  all 
three  classes  found  their  most  cherished  ideals  set  at 
nought  by  the  new  champion  of  the  soul's  inner  life 
in  fellowship  with  the  living  God.  In  all  his  teach- 
ing there  was  a  claim  of  authority  and  a  manifest 
independence  which  indicate  certainty  on  his  part 
concerning  his  own  mission.  Yet  so  completely  is  the 
personal  question  retired  for  the  time,  that  in  his 
rebuke  of  the  blasphemy  of  the  Pharisees  he  took 
pains  to  declare  that  it  was  not  because  they  had 
spoken  against  the  Son  of  Man,  that  they  were  in 
danger,  but  because  they  had  spoken  against  the  Spirit 
of  God,  whose  presence  was  manifest  in  his  works. 
He  wished,  primarily,  to  win  disciples  to  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

133.  Yet  Jesus  was  not  indifferent  in  Galilee  to 
what  the  people  thought  about  himself.  The  question 
at  Csesarea  Philippi  shows  more  fully  the  aim  of  his 
ministry.  During  all  the  period  of  the  preaching  of 
the  kingdom  he  never  hesitated  to  assert  himself 
whenever  need  for  such  self-assertion   arose.     This 


THE  MESSAGE  FROM  JOHN  125 

was  evident  in  his  dealing  with  his  pharisaic  critics. 
He  rarely  argued  with  them,  and  always  assumed  a 
tone  of  authority  which  was  above  challenge,  assert- 
ing that  the  Son  of  Man  had  authority  to  forgive  sins, 
was  lord  of  the  Sabbath,  was  greater  than  the  temple 
or  Jonah  or  Solomon.  Moreover,  in  his  positive 
teacliing  of  the  new  truth  he  assumed  such  an  authori- 
tative tone  that  any  who  thought  upon  it  could  but 
remark  the  extraordinary  claim  involved  in  his  simple 
"I  say  unto  you."  He  wished  also  to  win  disciples 
to  himself. 

134.  The  key  to  the  ministry  in  Galilee  is  furnished 
in  Jesus'  answer  to  the  message  from  John  the  Baptist. 
John  in  prison  had  heard  of  the  works  of  his  suc- 
cessor. Jesus  did  so  much  that  promised  a  fulfilment 
of  the  Messianic  hope,  yet  left  so  much  undone,  con- 
tradicting in  so  many  ways  the  current  idea  of  a  Mes- 
siah by  his  studied  avoidance  of  any  demonstration, 
that  the  older  prophet  felt  a  momentary  doubt  of  the 
correctness  of  his  earlier  conviction.  It  is  in  no 
way  strange  that  he  experienced  a  reaction  from  that 
exalted  moment  of  insight  when  he  pointed  out  Jesus 
as  the  Lamb  of  God,  particularly  after  his  restless 
activity  had  been  caged  within  the  walls  of  his  prison. 
Jesus  showed  that  he  did  not  count  it  strange,  by  his 
treatment  of  John's  question  and  by  his  words  about 
John  after  the  messengers  had  gone.  Yet  in  his  reply 
he  gently  suggested  that  the  question  already  had  its 
answer  if  John  would  but  look  rightly  for  it.  He  sim- 
ply referred  to  the  things  that  were  being  done  before 
the  eyes  of  all,  and  asked  John  to  form  from  them  a 
conclusion  concerning  him  who  did  them.  One  aid  he 
offered  to  the  imprisoned  prophet,  —  a  word  from  the 


126  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Book  of  Isaiah  (xxxv.  5f.,  Ixi.  If.),  — and  added  a 
blessing  for  such  as  "  should  find  nothing  to  stumble 
at  in  him."  Here  Jesus  emphasized  his  works,  and 
allowed  his  message  to  speak  for  itself ;  but  he  frankly 
indicated  that  he  expected  people  to  pass  from  won- 
der at  his  ministry  to  an  opinion  about  himself.  At 
Caesarea  Philippi  he  showed  to  his  discixDles  that  this 
opinion  about  himself  was  the  significant  thing  in  his 
eyes.  Throughout  the  ministry  in  Galilee,  therefore, 
this  twofold  aim  appears.  Jesus  would  first  divert  at- 
tention from  himself  to  his  message,  in  order  that  he 
might  win  disciples  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  he  con- 
ceived ito  Having  so  attached  them  to  his  idea  of  the 
kingdom,  he  desired  to  be  recognized  as  that  kingdom's 
prince,  the  Messiah  promised  by  God  for  his  people. 
He  retired  behind  his  message  in  order  that  men  might 
be  drawn  to  the  truth  which  he  held  dear,  knowing 
that  thus  they  would  find  themselves  led  captive  to 
himself  in  a  willing  devotion. 

135.  This  aim  explains  his ,  retirement  when  popu- 
larity pressed,  his  exacting  teaching  about  the  spirit- 
uality of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  injunctions  of 
silence.  He  wished  to  be  known,  to  be  thought  about, 
to  be  accepted  as  God's  anointed,  but  he  would  have 
this  only  by  a  genuine  surrender  to  his  leadership. 
His  disciples  must  own  him  master  and  follow  him, 
however  much  he  might  disappoint  their  misconcep- 
tions. This  aim,  too,  explains  his  frank  self-assertions 
and  exalted  personal  claims  in  opposition  to  official 
criticism.  He  would  not  be  false  to  his  own  sense  of 
masterhood,  nor  allow  people  to  think  him  bold  when 
his  critics  were  away,  and  cowardly  in  their  presence. 
Therefore,  when  needful,  he  invited  attention  to  him- 


THE   SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT  127 

self  as  greater  than  the  temple  or  as  lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath. This  kind  of  self-assertion,  however,  served  his 
purpose  as  well  as  his  customary  self -retirement,  for  it 
forced  people  to  face  the  contradiction  which  he  offered 
to  the  accepted  religious  ideas  of  their  leaders. 

136.  The  method  which  Jesus  chose  has  already 
been  repeatedly  indicated,  —  teaching  and  preaching 
on  the  one  hand,  and  works  of  helpfulness  to  men  on 
the  other.  The  character  of  the  teaching  of  this 
period  is  shown  in  three  discourses,  —  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  the  Discourse  in  Parables,  and  the  Instruc- 
tions to  the  Twelve.  The  sermon  on  the  mount  is 
given  in  different  forms  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  in 
Matthew  being  evidently  the  more  complete,  even 
after  deduction  has  been  made  of  those  parts  which 
Luke  has  assigned  with  high  probability  to  a  later 
time.  This  address  was  spoken  to  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  found  among  the  multitudes  who  flocked  to  him 
from  all  quarters.  It  opened  with  words  of  congratu- 
lation for  those  who,  characterized  by  qualities  often 
despised,  were  yet  heirs  of  God's  kingdom.  The 
thought  then  passed  to  the  responsibility  of  such  heirs 
of  the  kingdom  for  the  help  of  a  needy  world.  Next, 
since  much  in  the  words  and  works  of  Jesus  hitherto 
might  have  suggested  to  men  that  he  was  indifferent 
to  the  older  religion  of  his  people,  he  carefully  ex- 
plained that  he  came,  not  to  set  aside  the  old,  but  to 
realize  the  spiritual  idea  for  which  it  stood,  by  estab- 
lishing a  more  exacting  standard  of  righteousness. 
This  more  exacting  righteousness  Jesus  illustrated  by 
a  series  of  restatements  of  the  older  law,  and  then  by 
a  group  of  criticisms  of  current  religious  practice. 
The  sermon  closed  with  warnings  against  complacent 


128  THE  LIFE   OE  JESUS 

censoriousness  in  judging  other  men's  failures,  and  a 
solemn  declaration  of  the  vital  seriousness  of  "these 
sayings  of  mine."  The  righteousness  required  by 
this  new  law  is  not  only  more  exacting  but  unspeak- 
ably worthier  than  the  old,  being  more  simply  mani- 
fested in  common  life,  and  demanding  more  intimate 
filial  fellowship  with  the  living  God. 

137.  The  teachings  included  in  the  sermon  by  the 
first  gospel,  but  placed  later  by  Luke,  supplement  the 
sermon  by  bidding  God's  child  to  lead  a  trustful  life, 
knowing  that  the  heavenly  Father  cares  for  him. 
That  Luke  has  omitted  much  which  from  Matthew's 
account  clearly  belonged  to  the  original  sermon  may 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  Gentile  readers  did  not 
share  the  interest  which  Jesus'  hearers  had,  and  which 
the  readers  of  the  first  gospel  had,  in  the  relation  of 
the  new  gospel  to  the  older  law.  Hence  the  restate- 
ment of  older  commands  and  the  criticism  of  current 
practice  was  omitted.  Similar  to  the  teachings  which 
the  first  gospel  has  included  in  the  sermon,  are  many 
which  Luke  has  preserved  in  the  section  peculiar  to 
himself.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  they  belong  also  to 
the  Galilean  ministry.  They  urge  the  same  sincere, 
reverent  life  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  same  trust  in 
the  heavenly  Father,  the  same  certainty  of  his  love 
and  care ;  and  they  do  not  have  that  peculiar  note  of 
impending  judgment  which  entered  into  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  after  the  confession  at  Csesarea  Philippi. 

138.  In  the  story  of  Mark,  which  is  reproduced  in 
the  first  and  third  gospels,  the  use  of  parable  was  first 
introduced  in  a  way  to  attract  the  attention  of  the 
disciples,  after  pharisaic  opposition  to  Jesus  had  be- 
come somewhat  bitter  and  there  was  need  of  checking 


THE  PARABLES   OF  JESUS  129 

a  too  s^DeecIy  culmination  of  opposition.  He  chose  at 
that  time  a  form  of  parable  which  was  enigmatic  to  his 
disciples,  and  could  but  further  puzzle  hearers  who 
had  no  sympathy  with  him  and  his  message.  Mark 
(iv.  12)  states  that  this  perplexity  was  in  accordance 
with  the  purpose  of  Jesus.  But  it  is  equally  clear 
that  Jesus  meant  to  teach  the  teachable  as  well  as 
to  perplex  the  critical  by  these  illustrations,  for  in 
explaining  the  Sower  he  suggested  that  the  disciples 
should  have  understood  it  without  explanation  (Mark 
iv.  13).  Many  of  Jesus'  parables,  however,  had  no 
such  enigmatic  character,  but  were  intended  simply  to 
help  his  hearers  to  understand  him.  He  made  use  of 
this  kind  of  teaching  from  first  to  last.  The  pictures 
of  the  wise  and  foolish  builders  with  which  the  ser- 
mon on  the  mount  concludes  show  that  it  was  not  the 
use  of  illustration  which  surprised  the  disciples  in  the 
parables  associated  with  the  Sower,  but  his  use  of  such 
puzzling  illustrations.  Some  of  the  parables  of  Luke's 
peculiar  section  may  belong  to  the  Galilean  ministry, 
and  even  to  the  earlier  stages  of  it.  These  have  none 
of  the  enigmatic  character;  the  parables  of  the  last 
days  of  Jesus'  life  also  seem  to  have  been  simple  and 
clear  to  his  hearers.  The  Oriental  mind  prefers  the 
concrete  to  the  abstract,  and  its  teachers  have  ever 
made  large  use  of  illustration.  Jesus  stands  unique, 
not  in  that  he  used  parables,  but  in  the  simplicity  and 
effective  beauty  of  those  which  he  used.  These  illus- 
trations, whether  Jesus  intended  them  for  the  moment 
to  enlighten  or  to  confound,  served  always  to  set  forth 
concretely  some  truth  concerning  the  relation  of  men 
to  God,  or  concerning  his  kingdom  and  their  rela- 
tion to  it.     The  form  of  teaching  was  welcome  to  his 

9 


130  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

hearers,  and  served  as  one  of  tlie  attractions  to  draw 
men  to  him. 

139.  The  first  gospel  assigns  another  extended  dis- 
course to  this  Galilean  period,  —  the  Instructions  to 
the  Twelve.  The  mission  of  the  twelve  formed  a  new 
departure  as  Jesus  saw  the  Galilean  crisis  approach- 
ing. He  sought  thereby  to  multiply  his  own  work, 
and  commissioned  his  disciples  to  heal  and  preach  as 
he  was  doing.  The  restriction  of  their  field  to  Israel 
(Matt.  X.  5,  6)  simply  applied  to  them  the  rule  he 
adopted  for  himself  during  the  Galilean  period  (Matt. 
XV.  24).  Comparison  with  the  accounts  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  as  well  as  the  character  of  the  instructions 
found  in  Matthew,  show  that  here  the  first  evangelist 
has  followed  his  habit  of  gathering  together  teachings 
on  the  same  general  theme  from  different  periods  in 
Jesus'  life.  Much  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Matthew 
indicates  clearly  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  had  already 
passed  the  period  of  popularity,  and  that  his  disciples 
could  now  look  for  little  but  scorn  and  persecution. 
This  was  the  situation  at  the  end  of  Jesus'  public  life, 
and  parallel  sayings  are  found  in  the  record  of  the 
last  week  in  Jerusalem. 

140.  When  the  teaching  of  the  sermon  and  the 
parables  is  compared  with  Jesus'  self-assertion  in  his 
replies  to  pharisaic  criticism  and  blasphemy,  the  differ- 
ence is  striking.  Ordinarily  lie  avoided  calling  atten- 
tion to  himself,  wishing  men  to  form  their  opinion 
of  him  after  they  had  learned  to  know  him  as  he 
was.  Yet  when  one  looks  beneath  the  surface  of 
his  teaching,  the  tone  of  authority  which  astonished 
the  multitudes  is  identical  with  the  calm  self- 
confidence  which  replied  to  pharisaic  censure:  "The 


DEMONIAC  POSSESSION  131 

Son  of   ^lan   hath  authority  on  the  earth  to  forgive 
sins." 

141.  Jesus  drew  the  multitudes  after  him  not  only 
by  his  teachings,  but  also  by  his  mighty  works.  He 
certainly  was  for  his  contemporaries  a  wonder-worker 
and  healer  of  disease,  and,  in  order  to  appreciate  the 
impression  which  he  made,  the  miracles  recorded  in 
the  gospels  must  be  allowed  to  reveal  what  they  can 
of  his  character.  The  mighty  works  which  enchained 
attention  in  Galilee  were  chiefly  cures  of  disease,  with 
occasional  exhibitions  of  power  over  physical  nature, 
—  such  as  the  stilling  of  the  tempest  and  the  feed- 
ing of  the  five  thousand.  The  significant  thing  about 
them  is  their  uniform  beneficence  of  purpose  and 
simplicity  of  method.  Nothing  of  the  spectacular  at- 
tached itself  to  them.  Jesus  repeatedly  refused  to 
the  critical  Pharisees  a  sign  from  heaven.  This  was 
not  because  he  disregarded  the  importance  of  signs  for 
his  generation,  —  witness  his  appeal  to  his  works  in 
the  reply  to  John  (Matt.  xi.  4-6);  but  he  felt  that 
in  his  customary  ministry  to  the  needy  multitudes  he 
had  furnished  signs  in  abundance,  for  his  deeds  both 
gave  evidence  of  heavenly  power  and  revealed  the 
character  of  the  Father  who  had  sent  him. 

142.  One  of  the  commonest  of  the  ailments  cured 
by  Jesus  is  described  in  the  gospels  as  demoniac  pos- 
session, the  popular  idea  being  that  evil  spirits  were 
accustomed  to  take  up  their  abode  in  men,  speaking 
with  their  tongues  and  acting  through  their  bodies, 
at  the  same  time  afflicting  them  with  various  physical 
diseases.  Six  specific  cures  of  such  possession  are 
recorded  in  the  story  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  besides 
general  references  to  the  cure  of  many  that  were  pos- 


132  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

sessed.  Of  these  specific  cases  the  Gadarene  demoniac 
shows  symptoms  of  violent  insanity;  the  boy  cured 
near  Csesarea  Philippi,  those  of  epilepsy;  in  other 
cases  the  disease  was  more  local,  showing  itself  in 
deafness,  or  blindness,  or  both.  In  the  cures  recorded 
Jesus  addressed  the  possessed  with  a  command  to  the 
invading  demon  to  depart.  He  was  ordinarily  greeted, 
either  before  or  after  such  a  command,  with  a  loud 
outcry,  often  accompanied  with  a  recognition  of  him 
as  God's  Holy  One. 

143.  The  record  of  such  maladies  and  their  cure  is 
not  confined  to  the  New  Testament.  The  evil  spirit 
which  came  upon  King  Saul  is  a  similar  case,  and 
Josephus  tells  of  Jewish  exorcists  who  cured  possessed 
persons  by  the  use  of  incantations  handed  down  from 
King  Solomon.  The  early  Christian  fathers  frequently 
argued  the  truth  of  Christianity  from  the  way  in  which 
demons  departed  at  the  command  of  Christian  exor- 
cists, while  in  the  middle  ages  and  down  to  modern 
times  belief  in  demoniac  possession  has  been  common, 
particularly  among  some  of  the  more  superstitious 
of  the  peasantry  in  Europe.  Moreover,  from  mis- 
sionaries in  China  and  other  eastern  lands  it  is 
learned  that  diseases  closely  resembling  the  cases  of 
possession  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  are  fre- 
quently met  with,  and  are  often  cured  by  native 
Christian  ministers. 

144.  The  similarity  of  the  symptoms  of  so-called 
possession  to  recognized  mental  and  physical  derange- 
ments such  as  insanity,  epilepsy,  and  hysteria,  sug- 
gests the  conclusion  that  possession  should  be  classed 
with  other  ailments  due  to  ill  adjustment  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  mental  and  physical  life.     If  this  conclu- 


THE  PERSONAL  INFLUENCE  OF  JESUS  133 

sion  is  valid,  the  idea  of  actual  possession  by  evil  spirits 
becomes  only  an  ancient  effort  to  interpret  the  mysteri- 
ous symptoms  in  accordance  with  wide-spread  primitive 
beliefs.  This  explanation  would  doubtless  be  generally 
adopted  were  it  not  that  it  seems  to  compromise  either 
the  integrity  or  the  knowledge  of  Jesus.  The  gospels 
plainly  represent  him  as  treating  the  supposed  de- 
moniac influence  as  real,  addressing  in  his  cures  not 
the  invalid,  but  the  invading  demon.  If  he  did  this 
knowing  that  the  whole  vicAV  was  a  superstition,  was 
he  true  to  his  mission  to  release  mankind  from  its 
bondage  to  evil  and  sin?  If  he  shared  the  supersti- 
tion of  his  time,  had  he  the  complete  knowledge  neces- 
sary to  make  him  the  deliverer  he  claimed  to  be  ?  These 
questions  are  serious  and  difficult,  but  they  form  a  part 
of  the  general  problem  of  the  extent  of  Jesus'  knowledge, 
and  can  be  more  intelligently  discussed  in  connection 
with  that  whole  problem  (sects.  249-251).  It  is  rea- 
sonable to  demand,  however,  that  any  conclusion 
reached  concerning  the  nature  of  possession  in  the 
time  of  Jesus  must  be  considered  valid  for  similar 
manifestations  of  disease  in  our  own  day. 

145.  What  astonished  people  in  Jesus'  cures  was 
not  so  much  that  he  healed  the  sick  as  that  he  did  it 
with  such  evidence  of  personal  authority.  His  cures 
and  his  teachings  alike  served  to  attract  attention  to 
himself  and  to  invite  question  as  to  who  he  could  be. 
Yet  a  far  more  powerful  means  to  the  end  he  had  in 
view  was  the  subtle,  unobtrusive,  personal  influence 
which  without  their  knowledge  knit  the  hearts  of  a 
few  to  himself.  In  reality  both  his  teaching  and  his 
cures  were  only  means  of  self -disclosure.  His  perma- 
,nent  work  during  this  Galilean  period  was  the  winning 


134  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

of  personal  friends.  His  chief  agency  in  accomplish- 
ing his  work  was  what  Renan  somewhat  too  romanti- 
cally has  called  his  "  charm."  It  was  that  in  him  which 
drew  to  his  side  and  kept  with  him  the  fishermen  of 
Galilee  and  the  publican  of  Capernaum,  during  months 
of  constant  disappointment  of  their  preconceived  reli- 
gious ideas  and  Messianic  hopes ;  it  was  that  which  won 
the  confidence  of  the  woman  who  was  a  sinner,  and  the 
constant  devotion  of  Mary  Magdalene  and  Susanna 
and  the  others  who  followed  him  "  and  ministered  to 
him  of  their  substance."  The  outstanding  wonder  of 
early  Christianity  is  the  complete  transformation  not 
only  of  life  but  of  established  religious  ideas  by  the 
personal  impress  of  Jesus  on  a  Peter,  a  John,  and  a 
Paul.  The  secret  of  the  new  element  of  the  Christian 
religion  —  salvation  through  personal  attachment  to 
Jesus  Christ  —  is  simply  this  personal  power  of  the 
man  of  Nazareth.  The  multitudes  followed  because 
they  saw  wonderful  works  or  heard  wonderful  words ; 
many  because  they  hoped  at  length  to  find  in  the  new 
prophet  the  champion  of  their  hopes  in  deliverance  from 
Roman  bondage.  But  these  sooner  or  later  fell  away, 
disappointed  in  their  desire  to  use  the  new  leader  for 
their  own  ends.  It  was  only  because  from  out  the 
multitudes  there  were  a  few  who  could  answer,  "  To 
whom  shall  we  go?  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
life,"  when  Jesus  asked,  "Will  ye  also  go  away?" 
that  the  work  in  Galilee  did  not  end  in  complete 
failure.  These  few  had  felt  his  personal  power,  and 
they  became  the  nucleus  of  a  new  religion  of  love  to  a 
personal  Saviour. 

146.    The  test  of  the  personal  attachment  of  the  few 
came  shortly  after  the  execution  of  John  the  Baptist 


THE  FEEDING  OF  THE  FIVE  THOUSAND         135 

by  Antipas.  Word  of  this  tragedy  was  brought  to 
Jesus  by  John's  disciples  about  the  time  that  he  and 
the  twelve  returned  to  Capernaum  from  their  tour  of 
preaching.  At  the  suggestion  of  Jesus  they  withdrew 
to  the  eastern  side  of  the  lake  in  search  of  rest.  It  is 
not  unlikely  that  the  little  company  also  wished  to 
avoid  for  the  time  the  territory  of  the  tyrant  who 
had  just  put  John  to  death,  for  Jesus  was  not  yet 
ready  for  the  crisis  of  his  own  life.  Such  a  desire  for 
seclusion  would  be  intensified  by  the  continued  impet- 
uous enthusiasm  of  the  multitudes  who  flocked  about 
him  again  in  Capernaum.  In  fact,  so  insistent  was 
their  interest  in  Jesus  that  they  would  not  allow  him 
the  quiet  he  sought,  but  followed  around  the  lake  in 
great  numbers  when  they  learned  that  he  had  taken 
ship  for  the  other  side.  He  who  came  not  to  be  min- 
istered unto  but  to  minister  could  not  repel  the  crowds 
who  came  to  him,  and  he  at  once  "welcomed  them, 
and  spake  to  them  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  them 
that  had  need  of  healing  he  healed"  (Luke  ix.  11). 
The  day  having  passed  in  this  ministry,  he  multiplied 
the  small  store  of  bread  and  fish  brought  by  his  disci- 
ples in  order  to  feed  the  weary  people.  This  work  of 
power  seemed  to  some  among  the  multitudes  to  be  the 
last  thing  needed  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  to  be  their 
promised  deliverer,  and  they  "  were  about  to  come  and 
take  him  by  force  and  make  him  king  "  (John  vi.  15), 
when  he  withdrew  from  them  and  spent  the  night  in 
prayer. 

147.  This  sudden  determination  on  the  part  of  the 
multitudes  to  force  the  hand  of  Jesus  was  probably 
due  to  the  prevalence  of  an  idea,  found  also  in  the 
later  rabbinic  writers,  that  the  Messiah  should  feed  his 


136  THE  LIFE   OP  JESUS 

people  as  Moses  had  provided  them  manna  in  the 
desert.  The  rebuff  which  Jesus  quietly  gave  them 
did  not  cool  their  ardor,  until  on  the  following  day,  in 
the  synagogue  in  Capernaum,  he  plainly  taught  them 
that  they  had  quite  missed  the  significance  of  his  mir- 
acle. They  thought  of  loaves  and  material  sustenance. 
He  would  have  had  them  find  in  these  a  sign  that  he 
could  also  supply  their  spirits'  need,  and  he  insisted 
that  this,  and  this  alone,  was  his  actual  mission.  From 
the  first  the  popular  enthusiasm  had  had  to  ignore 
many  contradictions  of  its  cherished  notions.  But  his 
power  and  the  indescribable  force  of  his  personality 
had  served  hitherto  to  hold  them  to  a  hope  that  he 
would  soon  discard  the  perplexing  r6le  which  he  had 
chosen  for  the  time  to  assume,  and  take  up  avowedly 
the  proper  work  of  the  Messiah.  This  last  refusal  to 
accept  what  seemed  to  them  to  be  his  evident  duty 
caused  a  revulsion  in  the  popular  feeling,  and  "  many 
of  his  disciples  turned  back  and  walked  no  more  with 
him"  (John  vi.  6Q).  The  time  of  sifting  had  come. 
Jesus  had  known  that  such  a  rash  determination  to 
make  him  king  was  possible  to  the  Galilean  multi- 
tudes, and  that  whenever  it  should  come  it  must  be 
followed  by  a  disillusionment.  Now  the  open  min- 
istry had  run  its  course.  As  the  multitudes  were 
turning  back  and  walking  no  more  with  him,  he 
turned  to  the  twelve  with  the  question,  "  Will  ye  also 
go  away?"  and  found  that  with  them  his  method  had 
borne  fruit.  They  clung  to  him  in  spite  of  disillu- 
sionment, for  in  him  they  had  found  what  was  better 
thixn  their  preconceptions. 

148.    It  is  the  fourth  gospel  that  shows  clearly  the 
critical   significance  of  this   event.     The   others   tell 


THE  MINISTRY  IN  GALILEE  137 

nothing  of  the  sudden  determination  -of  the  multitude, 
nor  of  the  revulsion  of  feeling  that  followed  Jesus' 
refusal  to  yield  to  their  will.  Yet  these  other  gospels 
indicate  in  their  narratives  that  from  this  time  on 
Jesus  avoided  the  scenes  of  his  former  labors,  and 
show  that  when  from  time  to  time  he  returned  to  the 
neighborhood  of  Capernaum  he  was  met  by  such  a 
spirit  of  hostility  that  he  withdrew  again  immediately 
to  regions  where  he  and  his  disciples  could  have  time 
for  quiet  intercourse. 

149.  The  months  of  toil  in  Galilee  show  results 
hardly  more  significant  than  the  grain  of  mustard  seed 
or  the  little  leaven.  Popular  enthusiasm  had  risen, 
increased,  reached  its  climax,  and  waned.  Official  op- 
position had  early  been  aroused,  and  had  continued 
with  a  steadily  deepened  intensity.  The  wonderful 
teaching  with  authority,  and  the  signs  wrought  on 
them  that  were  sick,  had  been  as  seed  sown  by  the 
wayside  or  in  thorny  or  in  stony  ground,  except  for 
the  little  handful  of  hearers  who  had  felt  the  personal 
power  of  Jesus  and  had  surrendered  to  it,  ready 
henceforth  to  follow  where  he  should  lead,  whether 
or  not  it  should  be  in  a  path  of  their  choice.  These, 
however,  were  the  proof  that  those  months  had  been  a 
time  of  rewarded  toil. 


IV 

THE  IVnNISTEY  IN  GALILEE  —  THE  NEW    LESSON 

150.  With  the  crisis  in  Capernaum  the  ministry 
in  Galilee  may  be  said  in  one  sense  to  have  come  to 
an  end.  Yet  Jesus  did  not  immediately  go  up  to 
Jerusalem.  Once  and  again  he  was  found  in  or 
near  Capernaum,  while  the  time  between  these  visits 
was  spent  in  regions  to  the  north  and  northwest. 
In  fact,  the  disciples  were  far  from  ready  for  the 
trial  their  loyalty  was  to  meet  before  they  had  seen 
the  end  of  the  opposition  to  their  Lord.  The  time 
intervening  between  the  collapse  of  popularity  and 
Jesus'  final  departure  from  Galilee  may  well  be 
thought  of,  then,  as  a  time  of  further  discipline  of  the 
faith  of  his  followers  and  of  added  instruction  con- 
cerning the  truth  for  which  their  Master  stood.  The 
length  of  this  supplementary  period  in  Galilee  is  not 
definitely  known.  It  extended  from  the  Passover  to 
about  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (April  to  October,  see 
John  vi.  4  and  vii.  2).  The  record  of  what  Jesus 
did  and  said  in  this  time  is  meagre,  only  enough  being 
reported  to  show  that  it  was  a  time  of  repeated  with- 
drawals from  Galilee  and  of  private  instruction  for 
the  disciples. 

151.  The  disciples  were  trained  in  faith  by  further 
exhibitions  of  the  complete  break  between  their  Master 
and  the  leaders  of  the  people.     This  break  appeared 


THE   WITHDRAWALS   TO  THE   NORTH  139 

most  clearly,  soon  after  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes, 
in  his  reply  to  a  criticism  of  the  disciples  for  disregard 
of  pharisaic  traditions  concerning  hand-wasliing  (Mark 
vii.  1-23).  The  critics  insisted  on  the  sacredness  of 
their  traditions.  Jesus  in  reply  scored  them  for  dis- 
regard for  tlie  plain  demands  of  God's  law,  and  with 
a  word  freed  men  from  bondage  to  the  whole  ritual  of 
ceremonial  cleanness  and  uncleanness  (Mark  vii.  19), 
thus  attacking  Judaism  in  its  citadel. 

152.  It  was  immediately  after  this  that  he  with- 
drew with  his  disciples  to  the  regions  of  Tyre.  On 
his  return  a  little  later  to  the  west  side  of  the  sea  of 
Galilee  he  was  met  by  hostile  Pharisees  with  a  demand 
for  a  sign  (Mark  viii.  11-13),  and  after  refusing  to 
satisfy  tlie  unbelieving  challenge,  —  signs  in  plenty 
having  been  before  their  eyes  since  the  opening  of 
his  work  among  them,  —  he  and  his  disciples  with- 
drew again  from  Galilee  towards  Caesarea  Philippi. 
As  they  went  on  their  way,  Jesus  distinctly  warned 
them  against  the  influence  of  their  leaders,  religious 
and  political  (Mark  viii.  14  f.).  So  far  as  our  records 
tell  us  Jesus  was  but  once  again  in  Capernaum.  Then 
he  was  met  with  the  demand  that  he  pay  the  temple 
tax  (Matt.  xvii.  24-27).  This  tax  was  usually  col- 
lected just  before  the  Passover.  As  this  last  visit 
to  Capernaum  was  probably  not  far  from  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  in  arrears. 
This  may  have  been  due  to  his  absence  from  Caper- 
naum at  the  time  of  the  collection.  The  prompt 
answer  of  Peter  may  indicate  that  he  knew  that  in 
other  years  Jesus  had  paid  this  tax,  as  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  he  did.  The  question,  however,  implies 
official  suspicion  that  Jesus  was  seeking  to  evade  pay- 


140  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

ment,  and  exHbits  further  the  straining  of  the  relations 
between  him  and  the  Jewish  leaders.  The  conversa- 
tion of  Jesus  with  Peter  served  to  show  his  clear 
consciousness  of  superiority,  and  was  a  further  sum- 
mons to  the  disciples  to  choose  between  him  and  his 
opponents. 

153.  Within  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Land  the  faith 
of  the  disciples  had  been  constantly  tested  by  the 
increasing  opposition  between  their  master  and  their 
old  leaders.  When  the  little  company  withdrew  to 
Gentile  regions,  however,  Jesus  had  regard  for  their 
Jewish  feeling.  The  time  would  come  when  he  would 
send  them  forth  to  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations. 
For  the  present  he  made  it  his  business  to  nurture 
their  faith  in  him,  and  when  appealed  to  for  help  by 
one  of  these  foreigners,  he  refused  to  "  take  the  chil- 
dren's bread  and  cast  it  to  the  dogs  "  (Mark  vii.  27). 
Jesus  had  assumed  a  different  attitude  to  the  Samari- 
tans before  the  opening  of  his  work  in  Galilee,  and 
in  general  had  shown  ready  sympathy  for  all  in  dis- 
tress. In  fact  it  seems  as  if  he  welcomed  the  S}to- 
phoenician  woman's  great  faith  with  a  feeling  of  relief 
from  a  restriction  that  he  had  felt  it  wise  to  adopt  for 
his  work  in  Phoenicia.  It  appears  from  his  later  atti- 
tude in  the  Gentile  regions  of  the  Decapolis  (Mark 
vii.  31-37 ;  Matt.  xv.  21-31)  that,  having  once  shown 
his  regard  for  the  limitations  of  his  disciples'  faith  in 
the  case  of  the  Syrophoenician,  he  felt  no  longer  obliged 
to  check  his  natural  readiness  to  help  the  needy  who 
sought  him  out.  Although  in  one  instance,  for  reasons 
no  longer  known  to  us,  Jesus  charged  a  man  whom 
he  had  cured  to  keep  it  secret  (Mark  vii.  32-37),  in 
general  his  work  in  these  heathen  regions  seems,  after 


THE   MINISTRY  IN   GALILEE  141 

the  visit  to  Phoenicia,  to  have  been  quite  unrestrained, 
and  to  have  produced  the  same  enthusiasm  that  had 
earlier  brought  the  multitudes  to  him  in  Galilee  (Mark 
viii.  If.). 

154.  This  continued  activity  of  healing  must  have 
served  greatly  to  strengthen  the  determination  of  the 
disciples  to  cling  to  Jesus,  let  the  leaders  say  what 
they  would.  We  can  only  conjecture  what  various 
teachings  filled  the  days,  and  what  personal  fellow- 
ship the  disciples  had  with  him  who  spake  as  never 
man  spake.  There  was  need  for  advance  in  the  faith 
of  these  loyal  friends.  Their  enthusiastic  declaration 
when  the  multitudes  turned  away  could  easily  have 
been  followed  by  reaction.  Each  new  exhibition  of 
the  irrevocableness  of  the  break  between  Jesus  and 
the  leaders  was  a  severe  test  of  their  loyalty.  These 
weeks  of  withdrawal  were  doubtless  filled,  therefore, 
with  new  proofs  that  Jesus  had  the  words  of  eternal 
life. 

155.  Before  he  put  to  his  disciples  the  crucial 
cj^uestion,  he  who  knew  what  was  in  man  (John  ii.  25) 
was  confident  that  they  were  ready  for  it.  It  was 
after  the  rebuff  in  Galilee,  when  the  unbelieving 
Pharisees  had  again  demanded  a  sign  of  his  author- 
ity, and  after  he  had  definitely  warned  the  disciples 
against  the  influence  of  their  leaders,  that  Jesus  led 
his  little  company  far  to  the  north  towards  the  slopes 
of  Hermon.  There,  near  the  recently  built  C?esarea 
Philippi,  Jesus  plainly  asked  his  disciples  what  the 
people  thought  of  him  (Mark  viii.  27-30).  We  have 
seen  how  gradually  sentiment  in  Galilee  concerning 
the  new  teacher  crystallized  until,  from  thinking  him 
a  prophet,  the  people,  first  timidly,  then  boldl}',   con- 


142  THE  LITE   or  JESUS 

eluded  that  sueh  a  teaeher  and  worker  of  signs  must 
be  the  promised  king.  We  have  seen  also  how  the 
popular  estimate  changed  when  Jesus  refused  to  be 
guided  by  the  popular  will.  Now,  after  the  lapse  of 
a  few  weeks,  in  answer  to  his  inquiry  concerning  the 
common  opinion  of  him,  he  is  told  that  the  people  look 
on  him  as  a  prophet,  in  whom  the  spirit  of  the  men 
of  old  had  been  revived;  but  not  a  wliisper  remains 
of  the  former  readiness  to  hail  him  as  the  Messiah. 
It  was  in  the  face  of  such  a  definite  revulsion  in  the 
popular  feeling,  in  the  face,  too,  of  the  increasing  hos- 
tility of  all  the  great  in  the  nation,  that  Peter  answered 
for  the  twelve  that  they  believed  Jesus  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah, God's  appointed  Deliverer  of  his  people  (Matt, 
xvi.  16  ff.).  In  form  this  confession  was  no  more  than 
Nathanael  had  rendered  on  his  first  meeting  with  Jesus 
(John  i.  49),  and  was  practically  the  same  as  the  report 
made  by  Andrew  to  Simon  his  brother,  and  by  Philip 
to  Nathanael  (John  i.  41,  45).  In  both  idea  and  ex- 
pression the  reply  to  Jesus'  question,  "  Will  ye  also 
go  away?"  (John  vi.  68,  69),  was  virtually  equivalent 
to  this  later  confession  of  Peter.  Yet  Jesus  found  in 
Peter's  answer  at  Caesarea  Philippi  something  so  sig- 
nificant and  remarkable  that  he  declared  that  the  faith 
that  could  answer  thus  could  spring  only  from  a 
heavenly  source  (Matt.  xvi.  17).  The  early  confes- 
sions were  in  fact  no  more  than  expressions  of  more 
or  less  intelligent  expectation  that  Jesus  would  ful- 
fil the  confessor's  hopes.  The  confession  at  Caper- 
naum followed  one  of  Jesus'  mightiest  exhibitions  of 
power,  and  was  given  before  the  disciples  had  had 
time  to  consider  the  extent  of  the  defection  from  their 
Master.      Here   at    Csesarea    Philippi,    however,   the 


THE   CONFESSION  AT  C^SAREA  PHILIPPI        143 

word  was  spoken  immediately  after  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  the  people  had  no  more  thought  of  finding 
in  Jesus  their  Messiah.  It  was  spoken  after  the 
disciples  had  had  repeated  evidence  of  the  determined 
hostility  of  the  leaders  to  Jesus.  All  the  disappoint- 
ment he  had  given  to  their  cherished  ideas  was 
emphasized  by  the  isolation  in  which  the  little  com- 
pany now  found  itself.  One  after  another  their  ideas 
of  how  a  Messiah  should  act  and  v/hat  he  should  be 
had  received  contradiction  in  what  Jesus  was  and  did. 
Yet  after  the  weeks  of  withdrawal  from  Galilee,  Peter 
could  onl}^  in  effect  assert  anew  what  he  had  declared 
at  Capernaum,  —  that  Jesus  had  the  words  of  eternal 
life.  It  was  a  faith  chastened  by  perplexity,  and 
taught  at  length  to  follow  the  Lord  let  him  lead  where 
he  would.  It  was  an  actual  surrender  to  his  mastery 
over  thought  and  life.  Here  at  length  Jesus  had  won 
what  he  had  been  seeking  during  all  his  work  in  Gali- 
lee, —  a  corner-stone  on  which  to  build  up  the  new 
community  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Peter  was  the 
first  to  confess  openly  to  this  simple  surrender  to 
the  full  mastery  of  Jesus.  He  was  the  first  stone  in 
the  foundation  of  the  new  "  building  of  God." 

156.  In  his  commendation  of  Peter  Jesus  revealed 
the  secret  of  his  method  in  the  work  which,  because 
of  this  confession,  he  could  now  proceed  to  do  more 
rapidly.  He  cuts  loose  utterly  from  the  method  of  the 
scribes.  He,  the  new  teacher,  commits  to  them  no 
body  of  teaching  which  they  are  to  give  to  others  as 
the  key  to  eternal  life.  The  salvation  they  are  to 
preach  is  a  salvation  by  personal  attachment ;  that  is, 
by  faith.  The  rock  on  which  he  will  build  his  chiu*ch 
is  personal  attachment,  faith  that  is  ready  to  leave  all 


144  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

and  follow  him.  Peter,  not  the  substance  of  his  con- 
fession, Tvas  its  corner-stone,  but  Peter,  as  the  first 
clear  confessor  of  a  faith  that  is  ready  to  leave  all, 
a  faith  whose  very  nature  it  is  to  be  contagious,  and 
associate  with  itself  others  of  "like  precious  faith." 
His  faith  was  as  yet  meagre,  as  he  showed  at  once; 
but  it  was  genuine,  the  surrender  of  his  heart  to  his 
Lord's  guidance  and  control.  This  was  the  distinctive 
mark  of  the  new  religious  life  inaugurated  by  Jesus  of 
Nazareth. 

157.  If  anything  were  needed  to  prove  that  the 
idea  that  he  was  the  Messiah  was  no  new  thought  to 
Jesus,  it  could  be  found  in  the  new  lesson  which  he  at 
once  began  to  teach  his  disciples.  The  confession  of 
Peter  indicated  to  him  simply  that  the  first  stage  in 
his  work  had  been  accomplished.  He  immediately 
began  to  prepare  the  disciples  for  the  end  which  for 
some  time  past  he  had  seen  to  be  inevitable.  He  taught 
them  more  than  that  his  death  was  inevitable ;  he 
declared  that  it  was  divinely  necessary  that  he  should 
be  put  to  death  as  a  result  of  the  hostility  of  the  Jews 
to  him  ("the  Son  of  Man  must  suffer").  All  the 
contradictions  which  he  had  offered  to  the  Messianic 
ideas  of  his  disciples  paled  into  insignificance  beside 
this  one.  When  they  saw  how  he  failed  to  meet  the 
hopes  that  were  commonly  held,  they  needed  only  to 
urge  themselves  to  patience,  expecting  that  in  time  he 
would  cast  off  the  strange  mask  and  take  to  himself 
his  power  and  reign.  But  it  was  too  much  for  the  late 
confessed  and  very  genuine  faith  of  Peter  to  hear  that 
the  Messiah  must  die.  So  unthinkable  was  the  idea, 
that  he  assumed  that  Jesus  had  become  unduly  dis- 
couraged by  the  relentlessness  of  the  opposition  which 


THE  FIRST  PREDICTION  OF  DEATH  145 

had  driven  him  first  out  of  Judea  and  later  out  of 
Galilee.  Accordingly  Peter  sought  to  turn  his  ]Mas- 
ter's  mind  to  a  brighter  prospect,  asserting  that  his 
forebodings  could  not  be  true.  It  is  hard  for  us  to 
conceive  the  chill  of  heart  which  must  have  followed 
the  glow  of  his  confession  when  he  heard  the  stern 
rebuke  of  Jesus,  who  found  in  Peter's  later  words  the 
voice  of  the  Evil  One,  as  before  in  his  confession  he 
had  recognized  the  Spirit  of  God. 

158.  The  sternness  of  Jesus'  rebuke  escapes  extrava- 
gance only  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  words  of  Peter 
had  greatly  affected  Jesus  himself.  At  the  outset  of 
his  public  life  he  had  faced  the  difficulty  of  doing 
the  Messiah's  work  in  his  Father's  way,  and  had  with- 
stood the  temptation  to  accommodate  himself  to  the 
ideas  of  his  world,  declaring  allegiance  to  God  alone 
(Matt.  iv.  10).  Yet  once  and  again  in  the  course  of 
his  ministry  he  showed  that  this  allegiance  cost  him 
much.  Luke  reports  a  saying  in  which  Jesus  con- 
fessed that,  in  view  of  this  prospect  of  death  which 
Peter  was  opposing  so  eagerly,  he  was  greatly  "  strait- 
ened" (xii.  50),  and  at  the  near  approach  of  the  end 
''his  soul  was  exceeding  sorrowful"  (Mark  xiv.  34). 
It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  Jesus  was  a  Jew,  and 
heir  to  all  the  Messianic  ideas  of  his  people.  In  these, 
glory,  not  rejection  and  death,  was  to  be  the  Messiah's 
portion.  That  he  was  always  superior  to  current  ex- 
pectations is  no  sign  that  he  did  not  feel  their  force. 
They  quite  mistake  who  find  the  bitterness  of  Jesus' 
"  cup  "  simply  in  his  physical  shrinking  from  suffering. 
The  temptation  was  ever  with  him  to  find  some  other 
way  to  the  goal  of  his  work  than  that  which  led 
through  death.     What  Peter  said  had  a  force  greater 

10 


146  THE  LIEE   OF  JESUS 

than  any  word  of  the  disciple's.  It  voiced  the  crucial 
temptation  of  Jesus'  life.  The  answer  addressed  to 
Peter  showed  that  his  words  had  drawn  the  thought 
of  Jesus  away  from  the  disciple  to  that  earlier  tempta- 
tion which  was  never  absent  from  him  more  than  "  for 
a  season  "  (Luke  iv.  13). 

159.  Jesus  was  not  content  with  a  mere  rebuke  of 
his  impulsive  disciple.  In  his  first  announcement 
of  his  death  as  necessary  he  had  also  declared  that  it 
would  not  be  a  tragedy,  but  would  be  followed  by  a 
resurrection.  This  the  disciples  could  not  appreciate, 
as  they  found  the  idea  of  the  Messiah's  death  unthink- 
able. Jesus,  however,  saw  in  it  the  general  law,  that 
life  must  ever  v\^in  its  goal  by  disregard  of  itself,  and 
called  his  disciples  also  to  walk  in  the  path  of  self-sac- 
rifice. In  order  that  the  new  lesson  might  not  quite 
overwhelm  the  yet  feeble  faith  of  these  followers, 
Jesus  assured  them  that  after  his  death  and  resur- 
rection he  would  come  as  Messianic  Judge  and  fulfil 
the  hopes  which  his  prediction  of  death  seemed  to  blot 
out  utterly  (Mark  viii.  34  to  ix.  1). 

160.  That  this  new  lesson  was  a  difficult  one  for 
master  as  well  as  disciple  seems  to  be  shown  by  the  ex- 
perience which  came  a  few  days  later  to  Jesus  and  his 
three  closest  friends.  He  had  withdrawn  with  them 
to  a  "high  mountain"  for  prayer  (Luke  ix.  28 f.). 
While  he  prayed  the  light  of  heaven  came  into  his 
face,  and  his  disciples  were  granted  a  vision  of  him 
in  celestial  glory,  conversing  with  Moses  and  Elijah, 
representatives  of  Old  Testament  law  and  prophecy. 
The  theme  of  the  discourse  was  that  death  which  had 
so  troubled  the  disciples,  and  which  then  and  later 
weighed  heavily  on  Jesus'  own  spirit  (Luke  ix.  31). 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  147 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  vision  came  a  divine  injunc- 
tion to  hear  him  ^yho  now  was  superseding  haw  and 
prophets.  The  effect  of  the  transfiguration  can  only 
be  inferred.  It  doubtless  brought  strengthening  to 
Jesus  for  his  difficult  task  (compare  Heb.  v.  7),  and 
at  least  a  silencing  of  remonstrance  when  he  spoke 
again  to  his  disciples  of  his  approaching  death.  This 
he  did  while  the  little  company  was  making  its  way 
back  towards  Capernaum  (Mark  ix.  30-32),  and  re- 
peatedly later  before  the  end  came  (Mark  x.  32-34 ; 
Matt.  xxvi.  If.). 

161.  On  Jesus'  return  from  the  mountain,  he  was  met 
by  the  despairing  plea  of  a  father  and  healed  his  epi- 
leptic son,  out  of  whom  the  disciples  were  unable  to 
cast  the  demon  (Mark  ix.  14-29 ;  compare  vi.  7,  13). 
It  may  have  been  the  shock  which  the  new  lesson 
had  given  the  disciples  that  accounted  for  the  reproof 
of  their  lack  of  faith.  The  new  evidence  of  Jesus' 
power,  coupled  with  this  reproof,  seems  to  have  re- 
stored their  confidence  in  him.  Perhaps,  too,  there 
was  something  contagious  about  the  spirit  of  hope 
with  which  the  three  came  from  their  vision  of  the 
Master's  glory.  For,  although  they  were  not  free  to 
tell  what  they  had  seen  (Mark  ix.  9),  they  could  not 
have  concealed  the  fact  that  their  faith  had  received 
great  encouragement.  Whatever  the  cause,  hope  re- 
vived for  the  disciples,  for  on  the  way  back  to  Caper- 
naum a  dispute  arose  among  them  concerning  personal 
precedence  in  the  kingdom  which  their  Master  should 
soon  set  up.  In  this  rapid  reaction  from  unbelief  to 
faith  the  disciples  seem  to  have  forgotten  the  lesson  of 
self-denial  recently  given  them  (Mark  viii.  34,  35). 
In  Peter's  confession  the  corner-stone  of   the  church 


148  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

was  laid;  but  the  superstructure  was  yet  far  out  of 
sight.  Although  his  own  soul,  taking  its  way  down 
into  the  valley  of  shadows,  might  rightly  have  asked 
for  sympathy  and  complained  of  its  lack,  Jesus  simply 
set  a  little  child  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  taught 
them  again  the  first  lessons  of  faith,  —  gentle  humility 
and  trust.  Thereby  he  rebuked  the  spirit  of  rivalry 
and  asked  of  his  disciples  a  generous,  unselfish,  and 
forgiving  spirit  (Matt,  xviii.  1-35). 

162.  It  was  possibly  at  this  time,  certainly  near 
the  end  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  that  Jesus  was  ap- 
proached by  his  own  brethren,  who  urged  him  to  try 
to  win  the  capital.  Their  attitude  was  not  one  of 
indifference,  though  clearly  not  one  of  actual  faith  in 
his  claim  (John  vii.  2-5).  They  seem  to  have  felt 
that  Jesus  had  not  made  adequate  effort  to  secure  a 
following  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  could  not  hope 
for  success  in  his  work  if  he  continued  to  confine  his 
attention  to  Galilee.  Jesus  knew  conditions  in  Jeru- 
salem far  better  than  they  did,  and  had  no  idea  as  yet 
of  resuming  a  general  ministry  there.  He  therefore 
dismissed  the  suggestion,  and  left  his  brethren  to  go 
up  to  the  feast  disappointed  in  their  desire  that  he 
make  a  demonstration  at  that  time.  Yet  Jesus  still 
yearned  over  Jerusalem.  He  iknew  in  what  organized 
opposition  a  general  demonstration  would  result.  There 
were  some,  however,  in  the  capital  who  had  real  faith 
in  him.  His  repeated  efforts  to  win  Jerusalem  mean 
nothing  if  we  do  not  recognize  that  he  hoped  against 
hope  that  many  of  the  people  might  yet  turn  and  let 
him  lead  them.  With  some  such  purpose,  therefore, 
he  went  up  a  little  later  without  ostentation,  and 
quietly  appeared  in  the  temple  teaching.     The  effect 


AT  THE   FEAST  OF   TABERNACLES  149 

of  this  unannounced  arrival  was  that  the  opposition 
was  not  ready  for  him.  The  multitude  was  compelled 
to  form  an  opinion  of  him  for  itself,  and  he  had  oppor- 
tunity to  make  his  own  impression  for  a  time,  inde- 
pendently of  official  suggestion  as  to  what  ought  to  be 
thought  of  him.  This  course  resulted  in  a  division  of 
sentiment  among  the  people,  so  much  so  that  when  the 
leaders,  both  secular  and  religious,  sought  to  compass 
his  arrest,  the  officers  sent  to  take  Jesus  were  them- 
selves entranced  by  his  teaching.  In  spite  of  the  wish 
of  the  leaders  Jesus  continued  to  teach,  and  many  of 
the  people  began  to  think  of  him  with  favor.  When, 
however,  he  tried  to  lead  them  on  to  become  "dis- 
ciples indeed,"  they  took  offence,  and  showed  that 
they  were  not  ready  yet  to  follow  him.  This  effort 
to  "  gather  the  children  of  Jerusalem "  resulted  in 
new  proof  that  they  preferred  his  death  to  his  message 
(John  vii.  2  to  viii.  59). 

163.  Interesting  evidence  of  the  fact  that  "  Jesus 
did  many  other  signs  which  are  not  written  "  in  our 
accepted  gospels  is  found  in  the  story  of  his  dealing 
with  an  adulteress  whom  the  Pharisees  brought  to 
him  for  judgment  (John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11).  This 
narrative  had  no  secure  place  in  any  of  the  gospels  in 
the  earliest  days,  yet  was  so  highly  regarded  that  men 
would  not  let  it  go.  Hence  in  the  manuscripts  which 
contain  it,  it  is  found  in  various  places.  Some  give 
it  in  Luke  after  chapter  xxi.,  some  at  the  end  of  the 
Gospel  of  John,  one  placing  it  after  John  vii.  36. 
Many  considerations  combine  to  prove  that  it  was  no 
part  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  but  as  many  show  that 
it  preserves  a  true  incident  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
In  scene  it  belongs  to  the  temple,  therefore  in  time  to 


150  THE  LIFE   OE  JESUS 

one  of  the  Jerusalem  visits.  To  which  of  those  visits 
it  should  be  assigned  is  not  now  discoverable.  The 
ancient  copyists  who  assigned  it  to  this  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, chose  as  well  as  later  students  can.  If  the 
incident  belongs  to  this  visit,  it  illustrates  the  patience 
and  the  keen  insight  of  Jesus  in  his  effort  to  win 
self-satisfied  Jerusalem. 

164.  John  is  silent  concerning  the  doings  of  Jesus 
after  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  In  x.  22  he  notes 
that  Jesus  was  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Dedication, 
which  followed  two  months  later.  It  seems  probable 
that  after  his  hurried  and  private  journey  to  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  10)  he  returned  to  Galilee 
and  gathered  to  himself  again  the  little  company  of 
his  loyal  followers,  preparatory  to  that  final  journey 
to  Jerusalem  which  should  bring  the  end  foreseen, 
unless,  perchance,  Israel  should  yet  repent  and  turn 
unto  the  Lord.  As  the  shadow  deepened  over  his 
own  life,  and  the  persistency  of  the  unbelief  of  his 
people  appeared  more  and  more  clearly,  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  took  on  a  new  note  of  tragedy  which  was 
not  characteristic  of  the  earlier  preaching  in  Galilee. 
Even  when  his  topic  was  similar  and  his  treatment  of 
it  not  unlike  some  earlier  discourse,  there  appeared  in 
it  here  and  there  a  warning  of  impending  judgment. 
This  is  seen  as  early  as  the  reply  to  the  criticism  of 
the  disciples  for  disregard  of  traditions  (Matt.  xv.  13  f.). 
Many  discourses  in  the  section  peculiar  to  Luke  show 
by  the  presence  of  this  note  of  doom  that  they  belong 
to  this  later  time  rather  than  to  the  Galilean  period 
proper.     (See  the  table  prefixed  to  Chapter  V.) 

165.  Two  years  had  nearly  passed  since  Jesus  with- 
drew from  Judea  to  start  his  ministry  anew  in  a  differ- 


THE  MINISTRY  IN  GALILEE  151 

ent  region  and  following  a  different  method.  The 
fruit  of  that  ministry  was  small,  but  significant.  His 
proclamation  of  the  coming  kingdom  and  his  call  to 
a  deeper  righteousness,  coupled  as  they  were  with  his 
works  of  heavenly  power,  had  won  at  first  an  en- 
thusiastic following.  Realizing  that  an  uncontrolled 
enthusiasm  would  thwart  his  purpose  to  introduce  a 
kingdom  of  the  spirit,  Jesus  had  kept  his  Messianic 
claim  in  the  background,  seeking  first  to  win  disciples 
to  the  kingdom  that  he  was  proclaiming.  Yet  empha- 
size his  message  as  he  would,  he  could  not  conceal  his 
personal  significance.  In  fact  he  wished  by  winning 
disciples  to  his  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  to  attach  fol- 
lowers to  himself,  the  bearer  of  the  words  of  eternal 
life.  The  great  development  of  popular  enthusiasm 
did  not  deceive  him,  nor  did  he  hesitate,  when  the 
multitude  would  force  him  to  do  its  will,  to  show 
clearly  how  far  he  was  from  being  a  fulfiUer  of  their 
desires.  By  successive  disappointments  of  the  popu- 
lar ideas  he  sifted  his  followers  until  a  few  were  ready 
to  follow  him  whithersoever  he  might  lead.  With 
these  he  allowed  time  for  the  fact  of  his  unpopular- 
ity to  appear,  giving  them  opportunity  to  consider 
the  relentless  hostility  of  their  national  leaders  to  the 
teacher  from  Galilee.  Then  when  the  time  was  ripe 
he  drew  from  the  loj^al  few  their  declaration  that  they 
would  follow  him  in  spite  of  disappointments  and 
unpopularity,  their  confession  that  he  had  come  to  be 
to  them  more  than  their  cherished  preconceptions, 
that  he  had  won  the  mastery  over  their  thought  and 
life.  He  began  then  to  prepare  them  for  the  end  he 
had  long  foreseen,  and  at  length,  after  giving  them 
time  for  that  perplexing  mystery  to  find  place  in  their 


152  THE  LIFE  OE  JESUS 

hearts,  he  was  ready  to  move  on  toward  the  crisis 
which  he  knew  his  public  appearance  in  Jerusalem 
would  precipitate.  Before  setting  out  on  this  journey 
his  desire  still  to  seek  to  win  Jerusalem,  if  perchance 
it  would  repent,  led  him  to  visit  the  capital  unan- 
nounced at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  This  taught  him 
that,  however  ready  some  might  be  superficially  to 
believe  in  him,  he  could  as  yet  win  in  Jerusalem  only 
hatred  and  plots  against  his  life,  and  he  returned  to 
his  faithful  friends  in  Galilee. 


OUTLINE  OF  EVENTS  IN  THE  JOURNEY  THROUGH 
PEREA  TO   JERUSALEM 

The  final  departure  from  Galilee  —  Matt.  xix.  1,  2;  viii.  19-22; 

Mark  x.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  51-62. 
The  mission  of  the  seventy  —  Matt.  xi.  20-30 ;  Luke  x.  1-24. 
The  visit  to  the  feast  of  Dedication  —  John  ix.  1  to  x.  39. 
Possibly  at  this  time  : 

The  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  —  Luke  x.  25-37. 
The  visit  to  Mary  and  Martha  —  Luke  x.  38-42. 
Return  to  Perea  —  John  x.  40-42. 

The  visit  to  Bethany  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus  —  John  xi.  1-46. 
The  withdrawal  to  Ephraim  —  John  xi.  47-54. 
Events  connected  with  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  which  can- 
not be  more  definitely  located  : 
The  question  whether  few  are  saved  —  Luke  xiii.  22-30. 
Reply  to  the  warning  against  Herod,  probably  near  the  close  — 

Luke  xiii.  31-35. 
The  cure  of  ten  lepers  —  Luke  xvii.  11-19. 
The  question  of  the  Pharisees  concerning  divorce  —  Matt.  xix. 

3-12;  Markx.  2-12. 
The    blessing  of  little    children  —  Matt.   xix.  13-15;    Mark 

X.  13-16;  Luke  xviii.  15-17. 
The  question  of  the  rich  young  ruler  —  Matt.  xix.  16  to  xx.  16 ; 

Mark  x.  17-31;  Luke  xviii.  18-30. 
The  third  prediction  of  death  and  resurrection  —  Matt.  xx. 

17-19;  Markx.  32-34;  Luke  xviii.  31-34. 
The  ambitious  request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  —  Matt.  xx. 
20-28  ;  Mark  x.  35-45. 
The  last  stage,  Jericho  to  Jerusalem  : 

The  blind   men   near  Jericho  —  Matt.  xx.   29-34 ;  Mark  x. 
46-52;  Luke  xviii.  35-43. 


154  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

The  visit  to  Zacchaeus  —  Luke  xix.  1-10. 

The  parable  of  the  pounds  (minae)  —  Luke  xix.  11-28. 
Events  and  discourses  found  in  Luke  ix.  51  to  xviii.  14,  which 
probably  belong   after  the  confession  of   Peter,  and  very- 
likely  to  some  stage  of  the  journey  to  Jerusalem : 

Woes  against  the  Pharisees,  uttered  at  a  Pharisee's  table  — 
Luke  xi.  37-51. 

Warnings  against  the  spirit  of  pharisaism  —  Luke  xii.  1-59. 

Comment  on  the  slaughter  of  Galileans   by  Pilate  —  Luke 
xiii.  1-9. 

Discourse  on  counting  the  cost  of  discipleship  —  Luke  xiv. 
25-35. 

Discourse  on  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  —  Luke  xvii.  20-37. 

Parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge  —  Luke  xviii.  1-8. 

Parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  —  Luke  xviii.  9-14. 


THE  JOURNEY  THROUGH  PEREA  TO   JERUSALEM 

166.  The  fourth  gospel  says  that  after  the  visit  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Dedication  Jesus  withdrew 
beyond  Jordan  to  the  place  where  John  at  the  first 
was  baptizing  (x.  40).  Matthew  and  Mark  also  say 
that  at  the  close  of  the  ministry  in  Galilee  Jesus  de- 
parted and  came  into  the  borders  of  Judea  and  beyond 
Jordan,  and  that  in  this  new  region  the  multitudes 
again  flocked  to  Mm,  and  he  resumed  his  ministry  of 
teaching  (Matt.  xix.  If. ;  Mark  x.  1).  What  he  did 
and  taught  at  this  time  is  not  shown  at  all  by  John, 
and  only  in  scant  fashion  by  the  other  two.  They  tell 
of  a  discussion  with  the  Pharisees  concerning  divorce 
(Mark  x.  2-12) ;  of  the  welcome  extended  by  Jesus  to 
certain  little  children  (Mark  x.  13-16) ;  of  the  disap- 
pointment of  a  rich  young  ruler,  who  wished  to  learn 


THE  RECORD  IN  JOHN  155 

from  Jesus  the  way  of  life,  but  loved  better  his  great 
possessions  (Mark  x.  17-31);  of  a  further  manifesta- 
tion of  the  unlovely  spirit  of  rivalry  among  the  dis- 
ciples in  the  request  of  James  and  John  for  the  best 
places  in  the  kingdom  (Mark  x.  35-45),  —  a  request 
following  in  the  records  directly  after  another  predic- 
tion by  Jesus  of  his  death  and  resurrection  (Mark  x. 
32-34).  Then,  after  a  visit  to  Jericho  (Luke  xviii.  35 
to  xix.  28),  these  records  come  into  coincidence  with 
John  in  the  account  of  the  Messianic  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem just  before  the  last  Passover. 

167.  The  fourth  gospel  tells  in  addition  of  a  con- 
siderable activity  of  Jesus  in  and  near  Jerusalem 
during  this  period.  In  making  the  journey  beyond 
Jordan  start  from  Jerusalem  (x.  40),  John  shows  that 
Jesus  must  have  returned  to  the  capital  after  his  with- 
drawal from  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  When  and  how 
this  took  place  is  not  indicated.  Later,  after  his  re- 
tirement from  the  feast  of  Dedication  Jesus  hastened 
at  the  summons  of  his  friends  from  beyond  Jordan  to 
Bethany  when  Lazarus  died  (xi.  1-7).  From  Bethany 
he  went  not  to  the  other  side  of  Jordan  again,  but  to 
Ephraim  (xi.  54),  a  town  on  the  border  between  Judea 
and  Samaria,  and  from  there  he  started  towards  Jeru- 
salem when  the  Passover  drew  near.  This  record 
of  John  has,  as  Dr.  Sanday  has  recently  remarked 
(HastBD  11.  630),  so  many  marks  of  verisimilitude 
that  it  must  be  accepted  as  a  true  tradition.  It  de- 
mands thus  that  in  our  conception  of  the  last  journey 
from  Galilee  room  be  found  for  several  excursions  to 
Jerusalem  or  its  neighborhood.  One  of  these  at  least 
—  to  the  feast  of  Dedication  (x.  22)  —  represents  an- 
other  effort   to  "gather  the  children  of   Jerusalem." 


156  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Wliile  not  without  success,  for  at  least  the  blind  man 
restored  by  Jesus  gave  him  the  full  faith  he  sought 
(ix.  35-38),  it  showed  with  fuller  clearness  the  de- 
termined hostility  to  Jesus  of  the  influential  class 
(x.  39). 

168.  It  has  been  customary  to  find  in  the  long  sec- 
tion peculiar  to  Luke  (ix.  51  to  xviii.  14)  a  fuller 
account  of  the  Perean  ministry,  as  it  has  been  called. 
For  it  opens  with  a  final  departure  from  Galilee, 
and  comes  at  its  close  into  parallelism  with  the  record 
of  Matthew  and  Mark.  Yet  some  parts  of  this  section 
in  Luke  belong  in  the  earlier  Galilean  ministry.  The 
blasphemy  of  the  Pharisees  (xi.  14-36)  is  clearly  iden- 
tical with  the  incident  recorded  in  Mark  iii.  22-30,  and 
Matt.  xii.  22-45 ;  while  several  incidents  and  dis- 
courses (see  outline  prefixed  to  Chapter  III.)  bear  so 
plainly  the  marks  of  the  ministry  before  the  revulsion 
of  popular  favor,  that  it  is  easiest  to  think  of  them  as 
actually  belonging  to  the  earlier  time,  but  assigned  by 
Luke  to  this  peculiar  section  because  he  found  no 
clear  place  offered  for  them  in  the  record  of  Mark. 
Not  a  little,  however,  of  what  Luke  records  here  mani- 
festly belongs  to  the  time  when  Jesus  referred  openly 
to  his  rejection  by  the  Jewish  people.  The  note  of 
tragedy  characteristic  of  later  discourses  appears  in 
the  replies  of  Jesus  to  certain  would-be  disciples  (ix. 
57-62),  and  in  his  warning  that  his  followers  count  the 
cost  of  discipleship  (xiv.  25-35).  The  woes  spoken  at 
a  Pharisee's  table  (xi.  37-52),  the  warning  to  the  dis- 
ciples against  pharisaism  (xii.  1-12),  and  the  encour- 
agement of  the  "  little  flock  "  (xii.  22-34),  with  many 
other  paragraphs  from  this  part  of  the  gospel  (see  out- 
line at  the  head  of  this  chapter),  evidently  were  spoken 


THE  RECORD   IN  LUKE  157 

at  the  time  of  the  approaching  end.  Some  narratives 
reflect  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  and  naturally 
corroborate  the  indications  in  the  fourth  gospel  that 
Jesus  was  repeatedly  at  the  capital  during  this  time. 
The  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan,  for  instance,  must 
have  been  spoken  in  Judea,  else  why  choose  the  road 
from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho  for  the  illustration?  The 
visit  to  Mary  and  Martha  shows  Jesus  at  Bethany, 
and  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican, 
naming  the  temple  as  the  place  of  prayer,  belongs 
naturally  to  Judea. 

169.  The  effort  to  find  the  definite  progress  of  events 
in  this  part  of  Luke  has  not  been  successful.  There 
are  three  hints  of  movement  towards  Jerusalem,  —  the 
introductory  mention  of  the  departure  from  Galilee 
(ix.  51);  a  statement  that  Jesus  went  on  his  way 
through  cities  and  villages,  journeying  on  unto  Jeru- 
salem (xiii.  22) ;  and  again  a  reference  to  passing 
through  the  midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee  on  the  way 
to  Jerusalem  (xvii.  11).  The  attempt  to  make  the 
third  of  these  belong  actually  to  the  last  stages  of  the 
final  journey  seems  artificial.  Confessedly  the  expres- 
sion "  through  the  midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee  "  is 
obscure.  It  is  much  easier  to  understand,  however, 
if  the  journey  so  described  is  identified  with  the  visit 
to  Samaria  with  which  the  departure  from  Galilee 
opened.  It  seems  probable  that  Luke  found  these 
records  of  events  and  teachings  in  Jesus'  life,  and 
was  unable  to  learn  exactly  their  connection  in  time 
and  place,  so  placed  them  after  the  close  of  the 
Galilean  story  and  before  the  account  of  the  passion, 
much  as  later  some  copyist  found  the  story  of  the 
adulteress  (John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11),  and,  certain  that 


158  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

it  was  a  true  incident,  gave  it  a  place  in  connection 
with  the  visit  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (perhaps  in- 
fluenced by  John  viii.  15).  It  must  always  be  remem- 
bered that  the  earliest  apostolic  writing  —  Matthew's 
Logia  —  probably  consisted  of  just  such  disconnected 
records  (see  sects.  28,  42),  and  that,  as  Julicher  (Einlei- 
tung  i.  d.  NT.  235)  has  said,  the  early  church  was  not 
interested  in  when  Jesus  said  or  did  anything.  Its 
interest  was  in  what  he  said  and  did. 

170.  The  time  of  the  departure  from  Galilee  for 
Jerusalem  may  be  set  with  much  probability  not  long 
before  the  feast  of  the  Dedication  in  December ;  for 
at  that  feast  Jesus  was  again  in  Jerusalem,  and  from  it 
he  returned  to  Perea  (John  x.  22,  40-42).  He  started 
southward  through  Samaria  (Luke  ix.  51  ff.),  and  prob- 
ably in  connection  with  the  early  stages  of  the  journey 
he  sent  out  the  seventy  "  into  every  city  and  place 
whither  he  himself  was  about  to  come  "  (Luke  x.  1). 
It  is  not  unlikely  that,  after  the  sending  out  of  these 
heralds,  he  went  with  a  few  disciples  to  make  one 
more  effort  to  turn  the  heart  of  Jerusalem  to  himself 
(John  ix.,  X.).  It  is  impossible  to  determine  wliither 
the  seventy  were  sent.  The  ''  towns  and  cities " 
whither  Jesus  was  about  to  come  may  have  included 
some  from  all  portions  of  the  land,  not  excepting  Judea. 
The  matter  must  be  left  in  considerable  obscurity. 
This,  however,  may  be  said,  that  the  reasons  offered 
for  holding  that  the  story  of  the  sending  out  of  the 
seventy  is  only  a  "  doublet "  of  the  mission  of  the 
twelve  are  not  conclusive  (see  sect.  A  68).  The  connec- 
tion in  Luke  of  the  woes  against  Capernaum,  Bethsaida, 
and  Chorazin  with  the  instruction  of  the  seventy  is 
very  natural,  and  marks  this  mission  as  belonging  to 


THE   GOOD   SHEPHERD  159 

the  close  of  the  Galilean  period,  while  the  mission  of 
the  twelve  belongs  to  the  height  of  Jesus'  popularity. 
171.    Our  knowledge  of  Jesus'  visit  to  the  feast  of 
Dedication  is  due  to  John's  interest  in  the  cure  at 
about  that  time  of  one  born  blind  (John  ix.,  x.).     The 
prejudice  of  the  sanhedrists  who  excommunicated  the 
man  for  his  loyalty  to  Jesus  led  him  in  indignation  to 
contrast   their   method  of   caring  for  God's  "  sheep " 
with  his  own  love  and  sympathy  and  genuine  ministry 
to  their  needs.   He  saw  clearly  that  his  course  must  end 
in  death,  unless  a  great  change  should  come  over  his 
enemies ;  yet,  as  the  Good  Shepherd,  he  was  ready  to 
lay  down  his  life  for  the  sheep,  rather  than  leave  them 
to  the   heartlessness    of   leaders  who  cared   only  for 
themselves  (x.  11-18).    The  critics  of  Jesus  could  not, 
or  would  not,  understand  his  charge  against  them,  and 
accused  him  of  madness  for  his  extraordinary  claims. 
There  were  some,  however,  who  could  not  credit  the 
notion  that   Jesus   had  a  devil  (John  x.  21).     It   is 
possible  that  it  was  at  this  time  that  the  lawyer  ques- 
tioned him  about  the  breadth  of  interpretation  to  be 
given  to  the  word  "  neighbor "  in  the  law  of  love, 
and    was    answered    by    the    parable   of    the   Good 
Samaritan  (Luke  x.  25-37).     Possibly  the  parable  of 
the   Pharisee   and   the    Publican  (Luke  xviii.   9-14) 
belongs  also  to  this  time.     In  general,  however,  the 
visit  proved  anew  that  Jerusalem  was  in  no  mood  to 
accept  Jesus  (John  x.  24-39).     His  enemies  sought  to 
draw  from  liim  a  declaration  of  his  claim  to  be  the 
Messiah,  and  Jesus  appealed  to  his  works,  asserting 
that  only  their  incorrigible  prejudice  prevented  their 
recognizing  his  claims.     He  added   that   his   Father, 
with  whom  he  was  ever  in  perfect  accord,  had  drawn 


160  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

some  faithful  followers  to  him,  and  thereupon,  angered 
by  his  claim  to  close  kinship  with  God,  they  appealed 
to  the  rough  logic  of  violence  (John  x.  31-39 ;  com- 
pare viii.  59). 

172.  After  this  added  attempt  to  win  Jerusalem 
Jesus  withdrew  to  the  region  beyond  Jordan,  where 
John  had  carried  on  his  ministry  to  the  eager  mul- 
titudes. Here  he  anew  attracted  great  attention,  caus- 
ing people  to  contrast  his  ministry  with  the  less 
remarkable  work  of  John,  and  to  acknowledge  that 
John's  testimony  to  him  was  true  (John  x.  40-42). 
Possibly  it  was  in  this  place  that  the  seventy  found 
Jesus  when  they  returned  to  report  the  success  of  their 
mission  (Luke  x.  17-24),  for  the  thanksgiving  which 
Jesus  rendered  for  the  faith  of  the  common  people  in 
contrast  with  the  unbelief  of  the  "  wise  and  prudent " 
might  well  express  his  feeling  after  the  fresh  evidence 
he  had  at  the  feast  of  Dedication  that  Jerusalem 
would  none  of  his  mission.  The  invitation  to  all  the 
heavy  laden  to  take  his  yoke  illustrates,  though  under 
another  figure,  his  claim  to  be  the  Good  Shepherd 
(Matt.  xi.  28-30).  We  have  no  means  of  knowing 
how  much  more  of  what  the  gospels  assign  to  the  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem  should  be  put  in  connection 
with  this  sojourn  across  the  Jordan.  The  multitudes 
that  came  to  him  there  may  have  included  the  Phar- 
isees who  questioned  him  about  divorce  (Mark  x. 
2-12),  and  the  young  ruler  who  loved  his  great 
possessions  (Mark  x.  17-31),  as  well  as  the  parents 
who  eagerly  sought  the  Lord's  blessing  for  their 
children  (Mark  x.  13-16).  Some  parts  of  Luke's 
narrative  seem  to  belong  still  later  in  this  journey,  yet 
such  a  section  as  the  xe-plj  of  Jesus  to  the  report  of 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS  161 

Pilate's  slaughter  of  the  Galileans  (xiii.  1-9),  or  the 
parable  of  the  Great  Supper  (xiv.  15-24),  is  suitable 
to  any  stage  of  it. 

173.  This  sojourn  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan  was 
brought  to  a  close  by  the  summons  to  come  to  the 
aid  of  his  friends  in  Bethany  (John  xi.).  It  is  not 
strange  that  the  disciples  feared  his  return  to  Judea, 
nor  that  Jesus  did  not  hesitate  when  he  recognized  the 
call  of  duty  as  well  as  of  friendship.  In  no  recorded 
miracle  of  Jesus  is  his  power  more  signally  set  forth, 
yet  here  more  clearly  than  anywhere  else  he  is  repre- 
sented as  dependent  on  his  Father  in  his  exercise  of 
that  power.  The  words  of  Jesus  at  the  grave  (John 
xi.  41,  42)  show  that  he  was  confident  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus,  because  he  had  prayed  and  was  sure 
he  was  heard.  It  may  be  that  his  delay  after  hearing 
of  the  sickness  of  his  friend  (xi.  6)  was  a  time  of 
waiting  for  answer,  and  that  this  explains  his  con- 
fidence of  safety  when  the  time  came  for  him  to  ex- 
pose himself  again  to  the  hostility  of  Judea.  Jesus 
indicated  not  only  that  on  this  occasion  he  had  help 
from  above  in  doing  his  miracles,  but  that  it  was  the 
rule  in  his  life  to  seek  such  help  and  guidance  (xi. 
42).  In  fact,  at  a  later  time  he  ascribed  all  his  works 
to  the  Father  abiding  in  him  (John  xiv.  10;  compare 
X.  25).  The  effect  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus 
was  such  as  to  intensify  the  determination  of  the 
leaders  in  Jerusalem  —  both  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
—  to  get  rid  of  Jesus  as  dangerous  to  the  quiet  of  the 
nation  (John  xi.  47-54).  In  this  it  simply  served  to 
fix  a  determination  alread}^  present  (John  vii.  25,  32 ; 
viii.  59 ;  x.  31,  39).  The  miracle  does  not  appear  in 
John  as  the  cause  of  the  apprehension  of  Jesus,  but 

11 


162  THE  LITE  OF  JESUS 

rather  as  one  influence  leading  to  it.  It  was  indeed 
the  total  contradiction  between  Jesus  and  all  current 
and  cherished  ideas  that  led  to  his  condemnation  ;  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  only  showed  that  he  was  becoming 
dangerously  popular,  and  made  the  priestly  leaders 
feel  the  necessity  of  haste.  The  silence  of  the  first 
three  gospels  concerning  this  event  is  truly  perplex- 
ing, yet  it  is  not  any  more  difficult  of  explanation,  as 
Beyschlag  (LJ  I.  495)  has  shown,  than  the  silence  of 
all  four  evangelists  concerning  the  appearance  of  the 
risen  Jesus  to  James,  or  to  the  five  hundred  brethren 
(I.  Cor.  XV.  6,  7).  Room  must  be  allowed  in  our  con- 
ception of  the  life  of  Jesus  for  many  things  of  which 
no  record  remains,  all  the  more,  therefore,  for  incidents 
to  which  but  one  of  the  gospels  is  witness.  Moreover, 
after  the  collapse  of  popularity  in  Galilee,  the  great 
enthusiasm  of  the  multitudes  over  Jesus  when  he 
entered  Jerusalem  (Luke  xix.  37-40;  Mark  xi.  8-10) 
is  most  easily  understood  if  he  had  made  some  such 
manifestation  of  power  as  the  restoration  of  Lazarus. 

174.  After  the  visit  to  Bethany  Jesus  withdrew  to 
a  little  town  named  Ephraim,  on  the  border  between 
Judea  and  Samaria,  and  spent  some  time  there  in 
seclusion  with  his  disciples  (John  xi.  54),  doubtless 
strengthening  his  personal  hold  on  them  preparatory 
to  the  shock  their  faith  was  about  to  receive.  Of 
the  length  of  this  sojourn  nothing  is  told  us,  nor  of 
the  road  by  which  Jesus  left  Ephraim  for  Jerusalem 
(John  xii.  1).  The  first  three  gospels  show  that  he 
began  his  final  approach  to  the  Holy  City  at  Jericho 
(Mark  x.  46).  It  may  be  that  he  descended  from 
Ephraim  direct  to  Jericho  some  days  before  the  Pass- 
over, rejoining  there  some  of  the  people  who  had  been 


FROM  JERICHO  TO  JERUSALEM  163 

impressed  by  his  recent  ministry  in  the  region  "  where 
John  at  the  first  was  baptizing."  It  is  natural  to 
suppose  tliat  it  was  on  tliis  journey  to  Jericho  that 
he  warned  his  disciples  again  of  the  fate  which  he 
saw  before  him  in  Jerusalem  (Mark  x.  32-34),  and 
quite  probably  it  was  at  this  time  that  he  rebuked  the 
crude  ambition  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  by  reminding 
them  that  liis  disciples  must  be  more  ambitious  to 
serve  than  to  rule,  since  even  "  the  Son  of  Man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Mark  x.  35-45).  At 
Jericho  he  was  at  once  crowded  upon  by  enthusiastic 
multitudes.  The  feeling  they  had  for  him  may  per- 
haps be  inferred  from  the  cry  of  blind  Bartimeus, 
"Thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me"  (Mark  x. 
48).  This  enthusiasm  received  a  shock  when  Jesus 
chose  to  be  guest  in  Jericho  of  a  chief  of  the  publicans, 
a  shock  which  Jesus  probably  intended  to  give,  for 
much  the  same  reason  that  led  him  afterwards  on  his 
way  up  to  Jerusalem  to  teach  his  followers  in  the 
parable  of  the  pounds  that  they  must  be  ready  for 
long  delay  in  his  actual  assumption  of  his  kingly 
right  (Luke  xix.  11-28).  Finally,  six  days  before  the 
Passover,  he  and  his  disciples  left  Jericho  and  went 
up  to  Bethany  preparatory  to  his  final  appearance  in 
Jerusalem  (John  xii.  1). 

175.  The  interval  between  the  final  departure  from 
Galilee  and  the  public  entry  into  Jerusalem  was  given 
to  three  different  tasks :  the  renewed  proclamation  of 
the  coming  of  the  kingdom ,  further  efforts  to  win 
acceptance  in  Jerusalem,  if  perchance  she  might  learn 
to  know  the  things  that  belonged  to  her  peace ;  and 
continued  training  of  the  disciples,  specially  needed 


164  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

because  of  the  ill-considered  enthusiasm  with  which 
they  were  inclined  to  view  the  probable  issue  of  this 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  The  first  of  these  tasks  was 
conducted  as  the  earlier  work  in  Galilee  had  been, 
both  by  teaching  and  healing,  in  which  Jesus  used 
his  disciples  even  more  extensively  than  before.  It 
proved  that  here  as  in  Galilee  the  common  people 
were  ready  to  hear  him  gladly,  until  he  showed  too 
radical  a  disappointment  of  their  hopes.  In  this  new 
ministry  to  the  people  Jesus  spoke  very  frankly  of 
the  seriousness  of  the  opposition  which  the  leaders 
of  the  people  were  manifesting,  and  of  the  need  that 
those  who  would  be  his  disciples  should  count  the 
cost  of  their  allegiance  (Luke  xiii.  22-30 ;  xiv.  25-35 ; 
xii.  1-59).  He  did  not  hesitate  to  administer  the  most 
scatliing  rebuke  to  the  Pharisees  for  the  superficiality 
and  hypocrisy  of  their  religious  life  and  teaching 
(Luke  xi.  37-54),  —  a  rebuke  which  is  emphasized 
by  the  parable  in  which,  on  another  occasion,  he 
taught  God's  preference  for  a  contrite  sinner  over  a 
complacent  saint  (Luke  xviii.  9-14).  When  reminded 
of  Pilate's  outrage  upon  certain  Galilean  worshippers, 
he  used  the  calamity  to  warn  his  hearers  that  personal 
godliness  was  the  only  protection  which  could  secure 
them  against  a  more  serious  outbreak  of  the  hostility 
of  the  Roman  power  (Luke  xiii.  1-9) ;  and  it  was 
probably  in  reply  to  such  an  appeal  as  accompanied 
this  report  of  Pilate's  cruelty  that  Jesus  spoke  the 
parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge  (Luke  xviii.  1-8),  teach- 
ing that  God's  love  may  be  trusted  to  be  no  less 
regardful  of  his  people's  cry  than  a  selfish  man's  love 
of  ease  would  be. 

176.  The  second  of  these  tasks  must  not  be  held  to 


THE  JOUKNEY  THROUGH  PEREA  TO   JERUSALEM    165 

be  perfunctory,  even  though  each  new  effort  for  Jeru- 
salem proved  that  genuine  acceptance  of  its  saviour 
was  increasingly  improbable.  As  the  denunciations  of 
the  older  prophets  ever  left  open  a  way  of  escape  if 
Israel  would  return  and  seek  the  Lord,  so  the  anticipa- 
tion of  rejection  and  death  which  filled  the  heart  of 
Jesus  does  not  banish  a  like  if  from  his  own  thought 
of  Jerusalem  in  his  repeated  efforts  to  "  gather  her 
children."  The  combination  of  the  new  popular  en- 
thusiasm and  the  fresh  proofs  of  the  hopelessness  of 
winning  Jerusalem  made  more  important  the  third 
task,  —  the  founding  of  the  faith  of  the  disciples  on  the 
rock  of  personal  certainty,  from  which  the  rising  floods 
of  hatred  and  seeming  ruin  for  the  Master's  cause 
could  not  sweep  it.  It  was  for  them  that  much  of  his 
instruction  of  the  multitudes  was  doubtless  primarily 
intended ;  they  needed  above  all  others  to  count  the 
cost  of  discipleship  (Luke  xiv.  25-35),  and  the  warn- 
ings against  the  spirit  of  Pharisaism  (Luke  xii.)  were 
addressed  principally  to  them,  even  as  it  was  to  them 
that  Jesus  confessed  the  "  straitening  "  of  his  own  soul 
in  view  of  the  "  fire  which  he  had  come  to  cast  upon 
the  earth"  (Luke  xii.  49-53),  —  a  confession  which 
had  another  expression  when  he  fomid  it  needful  to 
rebuke  the  personal  ambition  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee 
(Mark  x.  35-45).  As  for  Jesus  himself,  the  popular 
enthusiasm  had  not  deceived  him,  nor  the  obdurate 
unbelief  of  Jerusalem  daunted  him,  nor  his  disciples' 
misconception  of  his  kingdom  disheartened  him;  he 
still  stedfastly  set  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem. 


OUTLINE   OF  EVENTS  IN  THE  LAST   WEEK  OF 
JESUS'   LIFE 

Saturday  (?).     The  anointing  in   Bethany   six   days  before  the 

Passover  —  Matt.  xxvi.  6-13  ;  Mark  xiv.  3-9;  Johnxi.  55  to 

xii.  11. 
Sunday  (?).     The  Messianic  entry  — Matt.  xxi.  1-11;  Mark  xi. 

1-11 ;  Luke  xix.  29-44  ;  John  xii.  12-19. 
Monday   (?).     Visit  to  the  temple:   the  cursing  of  the  barren 

fig-tree— Matt.   xxi.  18-19,  12-17;  Mark  xi.  12-14,  15-18  ; 

Luke  xix.  45%  47,  48. 
Return  to  Bethany  for  the  night  —  Matt.  xxi.  17 ;  Mark  xi.  19  ; 

Luke  xxi.  37,  38. 
Tuesday  (  ?),     Visit  to  the  temple  :  the  fig-tree  found  withered  — 

Matt.  xxi.  20-23;  Mark  xi.  20-27;  Luke  xx.  1. 
Challenge  of    Jesus*   authority  —  Matt.    xxi.    23-27;    Mark  xi. 

27-33  ;  Luke  xx.  1-8. 
Three  parables  against  the  religious  leaders  —  Matt.  xxi.  28  to 

xxii.  14  ;  Mark  xii.  1-12 ;  Luke  xx.  9-19. 
The    question   about   tribute — Matt.   xxii.    15-22;    Mark  xii. 

13-17  ;  Luke  xx.  20-26. 
The  question  of  the  Sadducees  about  the  resurrection  —  Matt. 

xxii.  23-33  ;  Mark  xii.  18-27 ;  Luke  xx.  27-40. 
The  question  of  the  Pharisees  about  the  great  commandment  — 

Matt.  xxii.  34-40  ;  Mark  xii.  28-34. 
Jesus'  counter-question    about  David's    son   and    Lord  —  Matt. 

xxii.  41-46  ;  Mark  xii.  35-37 ;  Luke  xx.  41-44. 
Jesus' denunciation  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  —  Matt,  xxiii. 

1-39 ;  Mark  xii.  38-40 ;  Luke  xx.  45-47. 
The  widow's  two  mites  —  Mark  xii.  41-44  ;  Luke  xxi.  1-4. 
The  visit  of  the  Greeks  —  John  xii.  20-36^ 
Final  departure  from  the  temple  —  John  xii.  36''  (-50). 


THE  EINAL  CONTROVERSIES  IN  JERUSALEM      167 

Discourse  concerning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of 

the  world  —  Matt.  xxiv.  1  to  xxvi.  2;  Mark  xiii.   1-37;  Luke 

xxi.  5-38. 
Plot  of  Judas  to  betray  Jesus  —  Matt.  xxvi.  3-5,  14-16  ;  Mark 

xiv.  1,  2,  10,  11  ;  Luke  xxii.  1-6. 
Wednesday.     Retirement  at  Bethany.  (  ?) 
Thursday.     The   Last  Supper  —  Matt.   xxvi.  17-30;   Mark  xiv. 

12-26  ;  Luke  xxii.  7-30;  John  xiii.  1-30. 
The  farewell  words  of  admonition  and  comfort  —  John  xiii.  31 

to  xvi.  33. 
The  intercessory  prayer  —  John  xvii.  1-26. 
Friday.     The  agony  in   Gethsemane  —  Matt.   xxvi.  30,   36-46 ; 

Mark  xiv.  26,  32-42 ;  Luke  xxii.  39-46  ;  John  xviii.  1. 
The  betrayal  and  arrest  — Matt.  xxvi.  47-56  ;  Mark  xiv.  43-52; 

Luke  xxii.  47-53;  John  xviii.  1-12. 
Trial  before  the  high-priests  and  sanhedrin  —  Matt.  xxvi.  57  to 

xxvii.  10;  Mark  xiv.  53  to  xv.  I'';    Luke  xxii.  54-71;    John 

xviii.  12-27. 
Trial  before  Pilate  —  Matt,  xxvii.  11-31;  Mark  xv.  1-20;  Luke 

xxiii.  1-25;  John  xviii.  28  to  xix.  16^ 
The   crucifixion  —  Matt,  xxvii.  32-56;   Mark  xv.  21-41;    Luke 

xxiii.  26-49;  John  xix.  16-37. 
The  burial  —  Matt,  xxvii.  57-61 ;  Mark  xv.  42-47 ;  Luke  xxiii. 

50-56;  John  xix.  38-42. 
Saturday.    The  Sabbath  rest  —  Luke  xxiii.  56''. 
The  watch  at  the  tomb  —  :\Iatt.  xxvii.  62-66. 


VI 

THE   FINAL   CONTROVERSIES   IN   JERUSALEM 

177.  The  early  Christians  were  greatly  interested 
in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  in  his  deeds,  but  they 
thought  oftenest  of  the  victory  which  by  his  resurrec- 
tion he  won  out  of  seeming  defeat.  This  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  of  the  first  two  gospels  over  one  third,  of 
Luke  over  one  fifth,  and  of  the  fourth  gospel  nearly 


168  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

one  half  are  devoted  to  the  story  of  the  passion  and 
resurrection.  This  preponderance  is  not  strange  in 
view  of  the  shock  which  the  death  of  Jesus  caused 
his  disciples,  and  the  new  life  which  the  resurrection 
brought  to  their  hearts.  The  resurrection  was  the  fun- 
damental theme  of  apostolic  preaching,  the  supreme 
evidence  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  Hence  the  cross 
early  became  the  object  of  exultant  Christian  joy  and 
boasting ;  and  in  this  the  church  entered  actually  into 
the  Lord's  own  thought,  for  through  the  cross  he 
looked  for  his  exaltation  and  glory  (Mark  viii.  31 ;  John 
xii.  23-36).  From  the  time  of  the  confession  at 
Csesarea  Philippi,  he  had  had  his  death  avowedly  in 
view,  and  had  repeatedly  checked  the  ambitious  and 
unthinking  enthusiasm  of  his  disciples  by  reminding 
them  of  what  he  must  receive  at  the  hands  of  the 
leaders  of  the  people.  The  few  months  preceding  his 
final  appearance  in  Jerusalem  had  been  devoted  to  the 
journey  to  the  cross.  This  explains  the  note  of  tragedy 
which  appears  in  his  teachings  at  this  period.  The 
people  had  shown  that  they  would  none  of  his  ministry. 
In  this  they  had  written  their  national  and  religious 
death  warrant,  and  as  he  approached  Jerusalem  for  the 
final  crisis  he  declared,  though  with  almost  breaking 
heart,  "  Your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate  "  (Luke 
xiii.  31-35).  Each  new  effort  of  Jesus  to  turn  aside 
the  impending  judgment  of  his  people  by  winning  their 
acceptance  of  himself  and  his  message  resulted  in  a 
new  certainty  of  his  ultimate  rejection,  and  thus  in 
confirmation  of  the  early  recognized  necessity,  that,  if 
he  continued  the  work  God  had  given  him  to  do,  he 
should  suffer  many  things,  and  die  at  the  hands  of  his 
own  people. 


THE  SUPPER  AT  BETHANY         169 

178.  The  last  chapter  in  his  public  ministry  began 
with  his  arrival  at  Bethany  six  days  before  the  Pass- 
over. It  is  probable  that  the  caravan  with  which  Jesus 
was  travelling  reached  Bethany  not  far  fi-om  the  sun- 
set which  marked  the  beginning  of  the  Sabbath  pre- 
ceding the  feast.  Jesus  had  friends  there  who  gladly 
gave  him  entertainment,  and  the  Sabbath  was  doubt- 
less spent  quietly  in  this  retreat.  The  holy  day  closed 
with  the  setting  sun,  and  then  his  hosts  were  able  to 
show  him  the  special  attention  which  they  desired. 
The  general  cordiality  of  welcome  expressed  itself  in  a 
feast  given  in  the  house  of  one  Simon,  a  leper  who 
had  probably  experienced  the  power  of  Jesus  to  heal. 
He  may  have  been  a  relative  also  of  Lazarus,  for 
Martha  assisted  in  the  entertainment,  and  Lazarus  was 
one  of  the  guests  of  honor  (Mark  xiv.  3  ;  John  xii.  2). 
During  the  feast,  Mary,  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  poured 
forth  on  the  head  and  feet  of  Jesus  a  box  of  the  rarest 
perfume.  This  act  of  costly  adoration  seemed  extrav- 
agant to  some,  particularly  to  one  of  Jesus'  disciples, 
who  complained  that  the  money  could  have  been 
better  spent.  This  criticism  of  one  who  had  not 
counted  cost  in  her  service  was  rebuked  by  Jesus,  who 
defended  and  commended  Mary;  for  in  the  act  he 
recognized  her  fear  that  he  might  not  be  long  with  her 
(Mark  xiv.  8;  John  xii.  7).  It  is  probable  that  this 
rebuke,  with  the  clear  reference  to  his  approaching 
death,  led  Judas  to  decide  to  abandon  the  apparently 
waning  cause  of  his  Master,  and  bargain  with  the  lead- 
ers in  Jerusalem  to  betray  him  (Mark  xiv.  3-11). 

179.  The  day  following  the  supper  at  Bethany  — 
that  is,  the  first  day  of  the  week  —  witnessed  the  wel- 
come of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  by  the  jubilant  multitudes. 


170  THE  LITE  OF  JESUS 

His  mode  of  entering  the  city  affords  a  marked  con- 
trast to  his  treatment  of  the  determination  to  make 
him  king  after  he  had  fed  the  multitudes  in  Galilee 
(John  vi.  15).  In  some  respects  the  circumstances 
were  similar.  A  multitude  of  the  visitors  to  the  feast, 
hearing  that  Jesus  was  at  Bethany  on  his  way  to  Jeru- 
salem, went  out  to  meet  him  with  a  welcome  that 
showed  their  enthusiastic  confidence  that  at  last 
he  would  assume  Messianic  power  and  redeem  Israel 
(John  xii.  12, 13).  Jesus  was  now  ready  for  a  popular 
demonstration,  for  the  rulers  were  unwilling  longer 
to  tolerate  his  work  and  his  teaching.  He  had  never 
hesitated  to  assert  his  superiority  to  official  criticism, 
and  at  length  the  hour  had  come  to  proclaim  the  full 
significance  of  his  independence.  In  fact  it  was  for 
this  that  some  montlis  before  he  had  set  his  face  stead- 
fastly to  go  to  Jerusalem.  When,  therefore,  the  crowd 
from  Jerusalem  appeared,  Jesus  took  the  initiative  in  a 
genuine  Messianic  demonstration.  He  sent  two  of  his 
disciples  to  a  place  near  by  to  borrow  an  ass's  colt,  on 
which  he  might  ride  into  the  city,  fulfilling  Zechariah's 
prophecy  of  the  "  king  that  cometh  meek,  and  riding 
upon  an  ass  "  (see  Matt.  xxi.  4,  5).  At  this,  the  enthu- 
siasm of  his  followers,  and  of  those  who  had  come  to 
meet  him,  became  unbounded,  and  without  rebuke 
from  Jesus  they  proceeded  towards  Jerusalem  crying, 
"  Hosanna ;  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord"  (Mark  xi.  9,  10).  Notwithstanding  the 
remonstrances  of  certain  Pharisees  among  the  multi- 
tude (Luke  xix.  39),  Jesus  accepted  the  hosannas,  for 
they  served  to  emphasize  the  claim  which  he  now 
wished,  without  reserve  or  ambiguity,  to  make  in 
Jerusalem.     The   time  for  reserve  had  passed.     The 


THE  MESSIANIC  ENTRY  171 

mass  of  the  people  with  their  leaders  had  shown 
clearly  that  for  his  truth,  and  himself  as  bearer  of  it, 
they  had  no  liking;  while  the  few  had  become  at- 
tached to  him  sufficiently  to  warrant  the  supreme  test 
of  their  faith.  He  could  not  continue  longer  his  efforts 
to  win  the  people,  for  both  Galilee  and  Judea  were 
closed  to  him.  Even  if  he  had  been  content,  without 
contradicting  popular  ideas,  to  work  wonders  and  pro- 
claim promises  of  coming  good,  he  could  with  diffi- 
culty have  continued  this  work,  for  Herod  had  already 
been  regarding  him  with  suspicion  (Luke  xiii.  31). 
He  had  run  his  course  and  must  measure  strength 
with  the  hostile  forces  in  Jerusalem.  For  the  last 
encounter  he  assumed  the  aggressive,  and  entered  the 
city  as  its  promised  deliverer,  the  Prince  of  Peace. 
The  ver}^  method  of  his  Messianic  proclamation  was 
a  challenge  of  current  Jewish  ideas,  for  they  were  not 
looking  for  so  meek  and  peaceful  a  leader  as  Zech- 
ariah  had  conceived;  this  entrance  emphasized  the 
old  contradiction  between  Jesus  and  his  people's  ex- 
pectations. He  accepted  the  popular  welcome  with 
full  knowledge  of  the  transitoriness  of  the  present 
enthusiasm.  As  he  advanced  he  saw  in  thought  the 
fate  to  which  the  city  and  people  were  blindly  hurry- 
ing, and  his  day  of  popular  triumph  was  a  day  of 
tears  (Luke  xix.  41-44).  The  city  was  stirred  when 
the  prophet  of  Nazareth  thus  entered  it ;  but  he 
simply  went  into  the  temple,  looked  about  with  heavy 
heart,  and,  as  it  was  late,  returned  to  Bethany  with 
the  twelve  for  the  night. 

180.  On  the  following  day  Jesus  furnished  to  liis 
disciples  a  parable  in  action  illustrating  the  fate  await- 
ing the  nation ;  for  it  is  only  as  a  parable  that   the 


172  THE  LIFE  OE  JESUS 

curse  of  the  barren  fig-tree  can  be  understood.  The 
idea  tliat  Jesus  sliowed  resentment  at  disappointment 
of  his  hunger  when  he  found  no  figs  on  the  tree  out  of 
season  is  too  petty  for  consideration.  He  was  drawn 
to  it  by  the  early  foliage,  for  it  was  not  yet  the  season 
for  either  fruit  or  leaves.  One  is  tempted  to  believe, 
as  Dr.  Bruce  has  suggested,  that  he  had  small  expec- 
tation of  finding  fruit,  and  that  even  before  he  reached 
the  tree  with  its  early  leaves  he  felt  a  likeness  between 
it  and  the  nation  of  hypocrites  whose  fate  was  so  clear 
in  his  mind.  The  withering  of  the  fig-tree  set  his 
disciples  thinking ;  and  Jesus  showed  that  it  was  an 
object  lesson,  promising  tliat  the  disciples,  by  the 
exercise  of  but  a  little  faith,  could  do  more,  even 
remove  mountains,  —  such  mountains  of  difficulty  as 
the  opposition  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation  would 
offer  to  the  success  of  their  work  in  their  Master's 
name. 

181.  The  curse  upon  the  barren  fig-tree  was  spoken 
as  Jesus  was  going  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem  on  the 
morning  after  his  Messianic  entry,  that  is,  on  Monday, 
and  it  was  Tuesday  when  the  disciples  found  it  with- 
ered away  (Mark  xi.  12-14,  20-25).  On  Monday  Jesus 
entered  into  the  temple  and  taught  and  healed  (Luke 
xix.  47 ;  Matt.  xxi.  14-16).  It  is  at  this  point  that 
Mark  inserts  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  which  John 
shows  to  belong  rather  to  Jesus'  first  public  visit  to 
Jerusalem.  The  place  which  this  incident  holds  in  the 
first  three  gospels  has  already  been  explained  by  the 
fact  that  it  furnished  one  cause  for  the  official  hostility 
to  Jesus,  and  that  Mark's  story  included  no  earlier 
visit  to  the  holy  city  (sect.  116 ;  see  A  39). 

182.  Tuesday,  the  last  day  of  public  activity,  ex- 


THE   QUESTION  ABOUT  TRIBUTE  l73 

liibits  Jesus  in  four  different  lights,  according  as  he 
had  to  do  mth  his  critics,  with  the  devout  widow,  with 
the  inquiring  Greeks,  and  with  his  own  disciples.  The 
opposition  to  him  expressed  itself,  after  the  general 
challenge  of  his  authority,  in  three  questions  put  in 
succession  by  Pharisees  and  Herodians,  by  Sadducees, 
and  by  a  scribe,  more  earnest  than  most,  whom  the 
Pharisees  put  forward  after  they  had  seen  how  Jesus 
silenced  the  Sadducees.  Jesus  met  the  opening  chal- 
lenge by  a  question  about  John's  baptism  (Mark  xi. 
29-33)  which  completely  destroyed  the  complacency 
of  liis  critics,  putting  them  on  the  defensive.  This 
was  more  than  a  clever  stroke,  they  Could  not  know 
what  his  authority  was  unless  they  had  a  quick 
sense  for  spiritual  things.  His  question  would  have 
served  to  biing  this  to  the  surface  if  they  had  pos- 
sessed it.  Their  reply  showed  them  incapable  of 
receiving  a  real  answer  to  their  question.  It  also 
gave  him  opportunity  to  say  in  three  significant  par- 
ables (Matt.  xxi.  28  to  xxii.  14)  what  their  spiritual 
blindness  signified  for  them  and  their  nation,  giving 
thus  a  turn  to  the  interview  not  at  all  to  their  minds. 
As  Jesus'  rebuke  was  spoken  in  the  hearing  of  the 
people,  a  determined  effort  was  at  once  made  to  dis- 
credit him  in  the  popular  mind.  The  question  (Mark 
xii.  13-17)  with  which  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians 
hoped  to  ensnare  him  was  most  subtle,  for  the  popular 
feeling  was  as  sensitive  to  the  mark  of  subserviency 
which  the  payment  of  tribute  kept  ever  before  them  as 
the  Roman  authorities  were  to  the  slightest  suspicion 
of  revolt  against  their  sway.  In  none  of  his  words  had 
Jesus  so  clearly  asserted  the  simple  other-worldliness 
of  his  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  in  his  answer 


174  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

to  the  question  about  tribute.  For  him  loyalty  to  the 
actual  earthly  sovereign  was  quite  compatible  with 
loyalty  to  God,  the  lower  obligation  was  in  fact  a 
summons  to  be  scrupulous  also  to  render  to  God  his 
due,  —  a  duty  in  which  this  nation  was  sadly  delin- 
quent. The  reply  gave  no  ground  for  an  accusation 
before  the  governor ;  but  the  popular  feeling  against 
Rome  was  so  strong  that  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it 
contributed  somevv^hat  to  the  readiness  of  the  multi- 
tude a  few  days  later  to  prefer  Barabbas  to  Jesus. 

183.  A  second  assault  was  made  by  some  Sadducees 
who  put  to  him  a  crude  question  about  the  relations 
of  a  seven-times  married  woman  in  the  resurrection 
(Mark  xii.  18-27).  If  this  question  was  asked  with  the 
expectation  of  making  Jesus  ridiculous  in  the  sight  of 
the  people  it  was  a  marked  failure,  for  his  reply  was  so 
simple  and  straightforward  that  he  won  the  admiration 
even  of  some  of  the  Pharisees.  The  most  significant 
feature  of  it  was  his  argument  from  God's  reference  to 
himself  as  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  for  in 
that  he  taught  that  the  fact  of  fellowship  with  God 
implies  that  God's  servants  share  with  him  a  life  that 
death  cannot  vanquish.  The  skill  with  which  Jesus 
met  these  two  questions  interested  some  of  his  hearers 
and  showed  to  his  opponents  that  they  must  put  for- 
ward their  ablest  champions  to  cope  with  him.  The 
next  test  was  more  purely  academic  in  character,  —  as 
to  Avhat  class  of  commands  is  greatest  in  the  law 
(Mark  xii.  28-34).  For  the  pharisaic  scholars  this  was 
a  favorite  problem.  For  Jesus,  hov\^ever,  the  question 
contained  no  problem,  since  all  the  law  is  summed  up 
in  the  two  commandments  of  love.  His  contempo- 
raries were  not  without  power  to  see  the  truth  of  his 


THE  ARRAIGNMENT  OF  THE  SCRHBES  175 

generalization,  and  their  champion  in  this  last  attack 
was  moved  with  admiration  for  the  fineness  and  suf- 
ficiency of  Jesus'  answer. 

18-i.  All  of  the  assaults  served  only  to  show  freshly 
the  clearness  and  profoundness  of  his  thought;  his 
critics  were  quite  discomfited  in  their  effort  to  en- 
tangle him.  They  had  done  with  him,  but  he  had  still 
a  word  for  them.  The  business  of  these  scribes  was  the 
study  of  the  scriptures.  They  furnished  the  people 
with  authoritative  statements  of  truth.  One  of  the 
common-places  of  the  current  thought  was  that  the 
Messiah  should  be  David's  son.  Jesus  did  not  deny 
the  truth  of  this  view,  yet  he  showed  them  how  partial 
their  ideas  were  by  quoting  a  word  of  scripture  in 
which  the  Messiah  is  shown  as  David's  Lord.  If 
they  had  been  open-minded  they  might  have  inferred 
from  this  that  perhaps  the  man  before  them  was  not  so 
impossible  a  Messiah  as  they  thought.  This  last  ques- 
tion closed  the  colloquy ;  there  awaited  yet,  however, 
Jesus'  calm,  scathing  arraignment  of  the  hypocrisy 
of  these  religious  leaders.  There  was  no  longer  any 
need  for  prudence  and  every  reason  for  a  clear  indica- 
tion of  the  difference  between  himself  and  the  scribes 
in  motive,  in  teaching,  and  in  character.  The  final 
conflict  was  on,  and  Jesus  freely  spoke  his  mind  con- 
cerning their  whole  life  of  piety  without  godliness. 
Never  have  sharper  words  of  reproach  fallen  from 
human  lips  than  these  which  Jesus  directed  against  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees ;  they  are  burdened  with  indig- 
nation for  the  misleading  of  the  people,  with  rebuke 
for  the  misrepresentation  of  God's  truth,  and  with 
scorn  for  their  hollow  pretence  of  righteousness. 
Through  it  all  breathes  a  note  of  sorrow  for  the  city 


176  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

whose  house  was  now  left  to  her  desolate.  The  change 
of  scene  which  introduces  the  widow  offering  her 
gift  in  the  temple  treasury  heightens  the  significance 
of  the  controversies  through  which  Jesus  had  just 
passed.  In  his  comment  on  the  worth  of  her  two 
mites  we  hear  again  the  preacher  of  the  sermon  on 
the  mount,  and  are  assured  that  it  is  indeed  from 
him  that  the  severe  rebukes  which  have  fallen  on  the 
scribes  have  come.  There  is  again  a  reference  to  the 
insight  of  him  who  sees  in  secret,  and  who  judges  as 
he  sees;  while  allusion  is  not  lacking  to  the  others 
whose  larger  gifts  attracted  a  wider  attention.  The 
whole  scene  is  like  a  commentary  on  Matt.  vi.  2-4. 

185.  Still  a  different  side  of  Jesus'  life  apjDcars  when 
the  Greeks  seek  him  in  the  temple.  They  were  prob- 
ably proselytes  from  some  of  the  Greek  cities  about 
the  Mediterranean  where  the  synagogue  offered  to 
the  earnest-minded  a  welcome  relief  from  the  foolish- 
ness and  corruption  of  what  was  left  of  religion  in 
the  heathen  world.  Having  visited  Jerusalem  for  the 
feast,  they  heard  on  every  hand  about  the  new  teacher. 
They  were  not  so  bound  to  rabbinic  traditions  as  the 
Jews  themselves,  they  had  been  drawn  by  the  fiuer 
features  of  Judaism,  —  its  high  morality  and  its  noble 
idea  of  God.  What  they  heard  of  Jesus  might  well 
attract  them,  and  they  sought  out  Philip,  a  disci|)le 
with  a  Greek  name,  to  request  an  interview  with  his 
Master.  The  evangelist  who  has  preserved  the  inci- 
dent (John  xii.  20-36)  evidently  introduced  it  be- 
cause of  what  it  showed  of  Jesus'  inner  life;  hence 
we  have  no  report  of  the  conversation  between  him 
and  his  visitors.  The  effect  of  their  seeking  him  was 
marked,  however,  for  it  offered  sharp  contrast  to  the 


THE  VISIT  OF   THE   GREEKS  177 

rejection  which  he  already  felt  in  his  dealings  with  the 
people  who  but  two  days  before  had  hailed  him  as 
Messiah.  This  foreign  interest  in  him  did  not  sug- 
gest a  new  avenue  for  Messianic  work,  it  only  brought 
before  his  mind  the  influence  which  was  to  be  his 
in  the  world  which  these  inquirers  represented,  and 
immediately  with  the  thought  of  his  glorification  came 
that  of  the  means  thereto,  —  the  cross  whose  shadow 
Avas  already  darkening  his  path.  Excepting  Gethse- 
mane,  no  more  solemn  moment  in  Jesus'  life  is  re- 
ported for  us.  A  glimpse  is  given  into  the  inner 
currents  of  his  soul,  and  the  storm  which  tossed  them 
is  seen.  It  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the  calmness  of 
his  controversy  with  the  leaders,  and  to  the  gentleness 
of  his  commendation  of  the  widow.  The  agitation 
passed  almost  at  once,  but  it  left  Jesus  in  a  mood 
which  he  had  not  shown  before  on  that  day ;  in  it  his 
own  thoughts  had  their  way,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
grain  of  v/heat  dying  to  appear  in  larger  life,  of  the 
Son  of  Man  lifted  up  to  draw  all  men  unto  him,  had 
utterance,  greatly  to  the  perplexity  of  his  hearers.  It 
seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  few  times  when  Jesus 
spoke  for  his  own  soul's  relief. 

186.  In  all  the  earlier  events  of  the  day  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  appear  but  little.  He  is  occupied  with 
others,  accepting  the  challenge  of  the  leaders,  and 
completing  his  testimony  to  the  truth  they  refused  to 
hear.  The  quieter  hours  of  the  later  part  of  the  day 
gave  time  for  further  words  with  his  friends.  The 
comment  on  the  widow's  gift  was  meant  for  them, 
and  the  uncovering  of  his  own  soul  when  the  Greeks 
sought  him  was  in  their  presence.  After  he  had  left  the 
temple  and  the  city  he  gave  himself  to  them  more  ex- 

12 


178  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

clusively.  His  disciples  were  perplexed  by  what  they 
saw  and  felt,  for  the  temper  of  the  people  toward  their 
Master  could  not  be  mistaken.  Yet  they  were  sure 
of  him.  The  leaders  among  them,  therefore,  asked 
him  privately  to  tell  them  Avhen  the  catastrophe  should 
come,  to  which  during  the  day  he  had  made  repeated 
reference.  The  conversation  which  followed  is  re- 
ported for  us  in  the  discourse  on  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world  (Mark  xiii.  and 
parallels),  in  which  Jesus  taught  his  disciples  to  ex- 
pect trouble  in  their  ministry,  as  he  was  meeting 
trouble  in  his ;  and  to  be  ready  for  complete  disap- 
pointment of  their  inherited  hopes  for  the  glory  of 
their  holy  city.  He  also  taught  them  to  expect  that 
his  work  would  shortly  be  carried  to  perfection,  and 
to  live  in  expectancy  of  his  coming  to  complete  all 
that  he  was  now  seeming  to  leave  undone.  This  les- 
son of  patience  and  expectancy  is  enforced  in  a  group 
of  parables  preserved  for  us  in  Matthew  (chap,  xxv.), 
closing  with  the  remarkable  picture  of  the  end  of  all 
things  when  the  Master  should  return  in  glory  as 
judge  of  all  to  make  final  announcement  of  the  sim- 
plicity of  God's  requirement  of  righteousness,  as  it 
had  been  exhibited  in  the  life  which  by  the  despite  of 
men  was  now  drawing  to  its  close. 

187.  The  bargain  made  by  Judas  to  betray  his  Lord 
has  always  been  difficult  to  understand.  The  man 
must  have  had  fine  possibilities  or  Jesus  would  not 
have  chosen  liim  for  an  apostle,  nor  would  the  little 
company  have  made  him  its  treasurer  (John  xii.  6; 
xiii.  29).  The  fact  that  Jesus  early  discovered  his 
character  (John  vi.  64)  does  not  compel  us  to  think 
that  his  selection  as  an  apostle  was  not  perfectly  sin- 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT  179 

cere ;  the  man  must  have  seemed  to  be  still  savable 
and  worthy  thus  to  be  associated  with  the  eleven  others 
who  were  Jesus'  nearest  companions.  It  has  often 
been  noticed  that  he  was  probably  the  only  Judean 
among  the  twelve,  for  Kerioth,  his  home,  was  a  town 
in  southern  Judea.  The  effort  has  frequently  been 
made  to  redeem  his  reputation  by  attributing  his 
betrayal  to  some  high  motive  —  such  as  a  desire  to 
force  his  IMaster  to  use  his  Messianic  power,  and  con- 
found his  opponents  by  escaping  from  their  hands  and 
setting  up  the  hoped-for  kingdom.  But  the  remorse 
of  Judas,  in  which  De  Quincey  finds  support  for  this 
theory  of  the  betrayal,  must  be  more  simply  and 
sadly  understood.  It  is  more  likely  that  the  traitor 
illustrates  Jesus'  words :  "  No  man  can  serve  two 
masters ;  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the 
other;  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise 
the  other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon " 
(Matt.  vi.  24).  The  beginning  of  his  fall  may  have 
been  his  disappointment  when  Jesus  showed  clearly 
that  he  would  not  establish  a  kingdom  conformed  to 
the  popular  ideas.  As  the  enthusiasm  which  drew 
him  to  Jesus  cooled,  personal  greed,  with  something  of 
resentment  at  the  cause  of  his  disappointment,  seem 
to  have  taken  possession  of  him,  and  they  led  him  on 
until  the  stinging  rebuke  which  Jesus  administered  to 
the  criticism  of  Mary  at  Bethany  prompted  the  man 
to  seek  a  bargain  with  the  authorities  which  should 
insure  him  at  least  some  profit  in  the  general  wreck 
of  his  hopes.  His  remorse  after  he  saw  in  its  bald  hid- 
eousness  what  he  had  done  was  psychologically  inevi- 
table. Although  Jesus  was  aware  of  Judas'  character 
from  the  beginning  (John  vi.  64),  he  that  came  to 


180  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

seek  and  to  save  tliat  which  was  lost  was  no  fatalist ; 
and  this  knowledge  was  doubtless  —  like  that  which 
he  had  of  the  fate  hanging  over  Jerusalem  —  subject 
to  the  possibility  that  repentance  might  change  what 
was  otherwise  a  certain  destiny.  As  the  event  turned 
he  could  only  say,  "  Good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he 
had  not  been  born  "  (Mark  xiv.  21). 

188.  With  this  the  curtain  falls  on  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus.  The  gospels  suggest  a  day  of 
quiet  retirement  following  these  controversies  and 
warnings,  with  their  fresh  demonstration  of  the  ir- 
reconcilable hostility  of  people  of  all  classes  to  him 
and  his  work.  After  the  seclusion  of  that  day,  he 
returned  to  give  final  proof  of  complete  obedience  to 
his  Father's  will. 


VII 

THE   LAST   SUPPER 

189.  On  Thursday  Jesus  and  his  disciples  returned 
to  Jerusalem  for  the  last  time.  Knowing  the  temper 
of  the  leaders,  and  the  danger  of  arrest  at  any  time, 
Jesus  was  particularly  eager  to  eat  the  Passover  with 
his  disciples  (Luke  xxii.  15),  and  he  sent  two  of  them 
—  Luke  names  them  as  Peter  and  John  —  to  prepare 
for  the  supper.  In  a  way  which  would  give  no  infor- 
mation to  such  a  one  as  Judas,  he  directed  them  care- 
fully how  to  find  the  house  where  a  friend  would 
provide  them  the  upper  room  that  was  needed  for  an 
undisturbed  meeting  of  the  little  band,  and  the  two 
went  on  in  advance  to  make  ready.  When  the  hour 
was  come  Jesus  with  the  others  went  to  the  appointed 
place  and  sat  down  for  the  supper  (Mark  xiv.  17; 
Luke  xxii.  14;  Matt.  xxvi.  20). 

190.  The  gospels  all  report  the  last  evening  which 
the  little  company  spent  together.  There  is  a  perplex- 
ing divergence,  however,  between  John  and  the  others 
concerning  the  relation  of  this  supper  to  the  feast  of  the 
Passover.  In  their  introduction  of  the  story,  INIark  and 
his  companion  gospels  indicate  that  the  supper  which 
Jesus  ate  was  the  Passover  meal  itself.  John,  on  the 
other  hand,  declares  that  it  was  "  before  the  feast  of  the 
Passover  "  (xiii.  1)  that  Jesus  took  this  meal  with  his 
disciples.     John's  account  is   consistent  throughout, 


182  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

for  he  states  that  on  the  next  day  the  desire  of  the 
Jews  to  "eat  the  Passover"  forbade  them  to  enter  the 
house  of  the  governor  lest  they  should  incur  defile- 
ment (xviii.  28).  The  other  gospels,  moreover,  hint 
in  several  ways  that  the  day  of  Jesus'  death  could  not 
have  been  the  day  after  the  Passover ;  that  is,  the  fiirst 
day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  Dr.  Sanday 
has  recently  enumerated  these  afresh,  remarking  that 
"  the  Synoptists  make  the  Sanliedrin  say  beforehand 
that  they  will  not  arrest  Jesus  '  on  the  feast  day,'  and 
then  actually  arrest  him  on  that  day ;  that  not  only  the 
guards,  but  one  of  the  disciples  (jMark  xiv.  47),  carries 
arms,  which  on  the  feast  day  was  not  allowed  ;  that  the 
trial  was  also  held  on  the  feast  day,  which  would  be  un- 
lawful ;  that  the  feast  day  would  not  be  called  simply 
Preparation  (see  Mark  xv.  42,  and  compare  John  xix. 
31)  ;  that  the  phrase  '  coming  from  the  field '  (Mark 
XV.  21  [Greek])  means  properly  'coming  from  work;' 
that  Joseph  of  Arimathea  is  represented  as  buying  a 
linen  cloth  (Mark  xv.  46)  and  the  women  as  preparing 
spices  and  ointments  (Luke  xxiii.  56),  all  of  which 
would  be  contrary  to  law  and  custom"  (HastBD  ii. 
634).  In  these  particulars  the  first  three  gospels  seem 
to  confirm  the  representation  of  the  fourth  that  the  day 
of  the  last  supper  was  earlier  than  the  regular  Jewish 
Passover.  On  the  other  hand,  a  strong  argument, 
though  one  that  has  not  commended  itself  to  other 
specialists  in  Jewish  archgeology,  has  been  put  forth 
by  Dr.  Edersheim  (LJM  ii.  567  f.)  to  prove  that  John 
also  indicates  that  the  last  supper  was  eaten  at  the 
time  of  the  regular  Passover.  In  the  present  condition 
of  our  knowledge  certainty  is  impossible.  If  John  does 
differ  from  the  others,  his  testimony  has  the  greatest 


JESUS  AND  THE  DISCIPLES  183 

weight.  While  not  conclusive,  it  has  some  significance 
that  Paul  identified  Christ  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  pass- 
over  (I.  Cor.  V.  7),  a  statement  which  may  indicate  that 
he  held  that  Jesus  died  about  the  time  of  the  killins'  of 
the  paschal  lamb.  If  John  be  taken  to  prove  that  the 
last  supper  occurred  a  day  before  the  regular  Passover, 
Jesus  must  have  felt  that  the  anticipation  was  neces- 
sary in  order  to  avoid  the  publicity  and  consequent 
danger  of  a  celebration  at  the  same  time  with  all  the 
rest  of  the  city. 

191.  Whatever  the  conclusion  concerning  the  date 
of  the  last  supper,  and  consequently  of  the  crucifixion, 
the  last  meal  of  Jesus  with  his  disciples  was  for  that 
little  company  the  equivalent  of  the  Passover  supper. 
Luke  states  that  the  desire  of  Jesus  had  looked  spe- 
cially to  eating  this  feast  with  his  disciples  (xxii.  1 5). 
The  reason  must  be  found  in  his  certainty  of  the  very 
near  end,  and  in  his  wish  to  make  the  meal  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  bitter  experiences  which  were  overhanging 
him  and  them. 

192.  It  is  customary  to  connect  as  occasion  and 
consequence  the  dispute  concerning  precedence  which 
Luke  reports  (xxii.  24-30),  and  the  rebuke  which 
Jesus  administered  by  washing  the  disciples'  feet  (John 
xiii.  1-20).  The  jealousies  of  the  disciples  may  have 
arisen  over  the  allotment  of  seats  at  the  table,  as  Dr. 
Edersheim  has  most  fully  shown  (LJ^L  ii.  492-503) ; 
such  a  controversy  v/ould  be  the  natural  sequel  of 
earlier  disputes  concerning  greatness,  and  parti  on  l^rly 
of  the  request  of  James  and  John  for  the  best  places 
in  the  coming  kingdom  (Mark  x.  35-45),  and  would 
lead  as  naturally  to  the  distress  of  heart  with  which 
Jesus  declared  that  one  of  the  disciples  should  betray 


184  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

him,  and  that  another  of  them  should  deny  him.  The 
narrative  in  Mark  favors  the  withdrawal  of  Judas 
before  the  new  rite  was  appointed.  This  must  seem 
to  be  the  probability  in  the  case,  for  the  presence  of 
Judas  would  be  most  incongruous  at  such  a  memorial 
service.  John's  mention  of  his  departure  before  the 
announcement  of  Peter's  approaching  fall  confirms 
this  interpretation  of  Mark  (Mark  xiv.  18-21 ;  John 
xiii.  21-30). 

193.  The  paschal  memories  furnished  to  Jesus  an 
opportunity  to  establish  for  his  disciples  an  institution 
which  should  symbolize  the  new  covenant  which  he  was 
soon  to  seal  with  his  blood.  Jesus  regarded  this  new 
covenant  as  that  which  was  promised  by  the  prophets, 
especially  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  31-34),  and  his  thought, 
like  that  of  the  prophets,  goes  back  to  the  story  of  the 
covenant  established  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xxiv.  1-11).  In 
this  way  he  gave  to  his  disciples  a  conception  of  his 
death,  which  later,  if  not  immediately,  would  help  them 
to  regard  it  as  a  necessary  part  of  his  work  as  Mes- 
siah. They  were  now  oppressed  by  the  evident  cer- 
tainty that  the  near  future  would  bring  their  Master 
to  death ;  he  accordingly  gave  them  a  sacred  reminder 
of  himself  and  of  his  death  as  an  essential  part  of  his 
self-giving  "  for  them  ;  "  for  whatever  the  conclusion 
concerning  the  disputed  text  of  Luke  (xxii.  19),  the 
institutional  character  of  the  act  and  words  of  Jesus 
is  clear.  As  Holtzmann  remarks  (NtTh  i.  304) : 
"  The  words  'this  do  in  remembrance  of  me'  were  per- 
haps not  spoken ;  all  the  more  certainly  do  they  of 
themselves  express  what  lay  in  the  situation  and  made 
itself  felt  with  incontestable  conclusiveness." 

194.  Several  hints  in  the  records  seem  to  connect 


THE  PASSOVER  RITUAL  185 

the  meal  in  various  details  with  what  is  known  of 
ancient  custom  in  the  celebration  of  the  Passover. 
The  hymn  v/ith  which  according  to  Mark  and  Matthew 
the  supper  closed  is  easily  identified  with  the  last 
part  (Psalms  cxv.  to  cxviii.)  of  the  so  called  Hallel^ 
which  was  sung  at  the  close  of  the  Passover  meal. 
The  mention  of  two  cups  in  the  familiar  text  of  Luke 
(xxii.  17-20)  agrees  with  the  repeated  cups  of  the 
Passover  ritual;  so  also  do  the  sop  and  the  dipping 
of  it  with  which  Jesus  indicated  to  John  who  the 
traitor  was  (John  xiii.  23-26;  Mark  xiv.  20).  If  it 
could  be  proved  that  the  customs  recorded  in  the 
Talmud  correctly  represent  the  usage  in  Jesus'  time 
it  would  be  of  extreme  interest  to  seek  to  connect 
what  is  told  us  of  the  last  supper  with  that  Passover 
ritual  as  Dr.  Edersheim  has  done  (LJM  ii.  490- 
512).  The  antiquity  of  the  rabbinic  record  is  so 
uncertain,  however,  that  it  is  only  useful  as  showing 
what  possibly  may  have  been  the  case.  All  that  can 
be  asserted  is  that  the  rabbinic  ritual  probably  orig- 
inated long  before  it  was  recorded,  and  that  as  the  last 
supper  was  a  meal  which  Jesus  and  his  disciples  cele- 
brated as  a  Passover,  it  is  probable  that  some  such 
ritual  was  more  or  less  closely  followed. 

195.  Luke  and  John  give  the  fullest  reports  of  what 
was  said  at  the  table.  All  the  gospels  tell  of  Peter's 
declaration  of  superior  loyalty  and  the  prediction  of 
his  threefold  denial ;  Luke,  however,  adds  that  in  con- 
nection with  it  Jesus  assured  Peter  of  his  restoration, 
and  charged  him  to  strengthen  his  brethren  (Luke  xxii. 
31-34).  John  alone  gives  the  long  and  full  discourse 
of  admonition  and  comfort,  followed  by  Jesus'  prayer 
for  his  disciples  (xiii.  31  to  xvii.  26).     It  is  evident 


186  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

from  the  words  of  Jesus  as  he  entered  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane  (Mark  xiv.  33,  34),  as  from  those  which 
had  escaped  him  when  the  Greeks  sought  him  the  last 
day  in  the  temple  (John  xii.  27),  that  his  own  heart  was 
greatly  troubled  during  the  supper  by  the  apparent  de- 
feat which  was  now  close  at  hand.  His  quietness  and 
self-possession  during  the  supper,  particularly  when 
tenderly  reproving  his  disciples  for  petty  ambition,  or 
when  solemnly  dismissing  the  traitor,  or  warning  Peter 
of  his  denials,  must  not  blind  us  to  the  depth  of  the 
emotion  which  was  stirring  his  own  soul.  It  is  only  as 
we  remember  his  trouble  of  heart  that  it  is  possible 
justly  to  value  the  ministry  which  in  varied  ways  he 
rendered  to  his  disciples  that  night.  In  the  discourses 
reported  by  John  he  showed  that  he  realized  that  the 
approaching  separation  would  sorely  try  the  faith  of  his 
followers,  and  he  sought  to  strengthen  them  by  show- 
ing his  own  calmness  in  view  of  it,  and  by  promising 
them  another  who  should  abide  with  them  spiritually 
as  his  representative,  and  continue  for  them  the  work 
which  he  had  begun.  He  therefore  urged  them  to 
maintain  their  devotion  to  him,  still  to  seek  and  find 
the  source  of  their  life  and  secret  of  their  strength  in 
fellowship  with  him  —  present,  though  unseen  among 
them.  He  sought  to  convince  them  that  his  departure 
was  to  be  for  their  advantage,  that  fellowship  with  him 
spiritually  would  be  far  more  real  and  efficacious  than 
the  intercourse  they  had  already  enjoyed.  He  whose 
own  heart  was  "exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto  death'' 
bade  his  disciples  not  to  let  their  hearts  be  troubled 
nor  afraid.  How  long  the  conversation  continued,  of 
when  the  company  left  the  upper  chamber,  cannot  be 
told.     At  some  time  before  the  arrival  at  Gethsemane 


THE  INTERCESSORY  PRAYER  187 

Jesus  turned  to  God  in  prayer  for  the  disciples  whom 
he  was  about  to  leave  to  the  severe  trial  of  their 
faith,  asking  for  them  that  realization  of  eternal  life 
which  he  had  enjoyed  and  exemplified  in  his  own  in- 
timate life  with  his  Father.  With  this  his  ministry 
to  them  closed  for  the  time,  and,  crossing  the  Kidron, 
he  entered  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  weighed  down 
by  the  sorrow  of  his  own  soul. 


VIII 

THE   SHADOW   OF   DEATH 

196.  Of  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  it  is  only  known 
that  it  was  across  the  Kidron,  on  the  slope  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  Tradition  has  long  pointed  to  an 
enclosure  some  fifty  yards  beyond  the  bridge  that 
crosses  the  ravine  on  the  road  leading  eastward  from 
St.  Stephen's  gate.  Most  students  feel  that  this  is 
too  near  the  city  and  the  highway  for  the  place  of 
retreat  chosen  by  Jesus.  Archseologically  and  senti- 
mentally the  identification  of  places  connected  with 
the  life  of  Jesus  is  of  great  interest.  Practically, 
however,  it  is  easy  to  over-emphasize  the  importance 
of  such  an  identification.  Granted  the  fact  that  in 
some  olive  grove  on  the  mountain-side,  where  an  oil- 
press  gave  a  name  to  the  place  (Gethsemane),  Jesus 
Vvdthdrew  with  his  disciples  on  that  last  night,  and 
all  that  is  important  is  known.  It  is  of  far  higher 
importance  to  see  rightly  the  relation  of  what  took 
place  in  that  garden  to  the  things  which  preceded  and 
followed  it  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  At  that  time  Jesus 
saw  pressed  to  his  lips  the  "cup"  from  the  bitterness 
of  which  his  whole  soul  shrank.  It  was  not  an  un- 
looked-for trial;  some  time  earlier  he  had  sought  to 
cool  the  ardor  of  the  ambition  of  James  and  John  by 
telling  them  that  they  should  drink  of  his  cup,  and 
declared  that  even  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 


GETHSEMANE  189 

ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many.  The  fourth  gospel,  whose  repre- 
sentation omits  the  agony  of  Gethsemane  and  only 
reports  its  victory,  tells  how  Jesus  rebuked  the  vio- 
lent impulse  of  Peter  with  the  word,  "  The  cup  which 
my  Father  hath  given  me  to  drink  shall  I  not  drink 
it?"  (John  xviii.  11^);  and  all  the  gospels  exhibit 
the  marvellous  quietness  of  spirit  and  dignity  of  self- 
surrender  which  characterized  Jesus  throughout  his 
trial  and  execution.  In  Gethsemane,  however,  we  see 
the  struggle  in  which  that  calmness  and  self-mastery 
were  won. 

197.  It  is  unbecoming  to  consider  that  scene  with 
any  vulgar  curiosity  to  know  what  it  was  that  made 
Jesus  so  draw  back  from  the  drinking  of  his  "cup." 
It  is  not  unfitting,  however,  to  recognize  that  in  his 
cry,  "  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  possible  unto  thee ; 
remove  this  cup  from  me "  (Mark  xiv.  36),  an  in- 
tense longing  of  his  own  soul's  life  had  expression. 
There  was  something  in  the  fate  which  he  saw  before 
him  from  which  his  whole  being  shrank.  But  stronger 
than  this  was  his  fixed  desire  to  do  his  Father's 
w^ill.  Here  was  supremely  illustrated  the  truth  that 
"  he  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  his  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  him"  (John  vi.  38). 
The  fullest  allowance  for  the  shrinking  of  the  most 
delicately  constituted  nature  from  pain  and  death  com- 
pletely fails  to  account  for  this  dread  of  Jesus.  He 
was  no  coward,  drawing  back  from  sufferings  which 
for  simple  physical  pain  were  over  and  again  more  than 
matched  by  many  of  the  martyrs  to  truth  who  preceded 
and  followed  him.  He  himself  declared  to  the  sons 
of  Zebedee  that  they  should  share  a  cup  in  kind  like 


190  THE  LIEE  OF  JESUS 

unto  his,  suffering  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  Yet  there  is  a  difference  evi- 
dent between  what  others  have  had  to  bear  and  the 
cup  from  which  Jesus  shrank.  The  death  which  now 
stood  before  him  in  the  path  of  obedience  had  in  it  a 
bitterness  quite  unexplained  by  the  pain  and  disap- 
pointment it  entailed.  That  excess  of  bitterness  can 
probably  never  be  understood  by  us.  A  hint  of  its 
nature  may  be  found  in  the  "  shame  of  the  cross " 
which  the  author  of  Hebrews  (xii.  2;  xiii.  13)  empha- 
sizes, and  in  the  "curse"  of  the  cross  which  made  it 
a  stumbling  block  to  Paul  and  his  Jewish  brethren 
(Gal.  iii.  13;  I.  Cor.  i.  23).  Jesus  came  from  the  gar- 
den ready  to  endure  the  cross  in  obedience  to  his 
Father's  will;  but  it  was  a  costly  obedience,  a  complete 
emptying  of  himself  (Phil.  ii.  7,  8). 

198.  The  loneliness  of  Jesus  in  his  struggle  is 
emphasized  in  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Matthew.  In 
search  of  sympathy  he  had  confessed  to  the  disciples 
his  trouble  of  heart,  and  had  taken  his  three  intimates 
with  him  when  he  withdrew  from  the  others  for 
prayer,  asking  them  to  watch  with  him.  They  were 
too  heavy  of  heart  and  weary  of  body  to  stand  by  in 
his  bitter  hour,  and  instead  of  being  in  readiness  to 
warn  him  of  the  approach  of  the  hostile  band,  he  had 
to  awake  them  to  their  danger.  The  fourth  gospel 
reports  that  after  the  struggle  Jesus  bore  marks  of 
majesty  which  astonished  and  overawed  his  foes  when 
he  calmly  told  them  that  he  was  the  one  they  were 
seeking.  Their  fear  was  overcome,  however,  when 
Judas  gave  the  appointed  sign  by  kissing  his  Master 
(Mark  xiv.  45).  The  thought  for  the  disciples' 
safety  which  John  records  (xviii.  8)  is  another  proof 


THE   TRIAL  OF  JESUS  191 

that  the  fight  had  been  won,  and  Jesus  had  fully 
resumed  the  self -emptying  ministry  appointed  to  him 
by  his  Father. 

199.  The  band  that  arrested  Jesus  was  accompanied 
by  a  Roman  cohort  from  the  garrison  of  the  city,  but 
it  was  not  needed,  for  the  disciples  offered  no  appre- 
ciable resistance;  on  the  contrary,  "they  all  forsook 
him  and  fled "  (Mark  xiv.  50).  Having  arrested 
Jesus,  the  band  took  him  to  Annas,  the  actual 
leader  of  Jewish  affairs,  though  not  at  the  time  the 
ofBcial  high-priest.  He  had  held  that  office  some  time 
before,  but  had  been  deposed  by  the  Roman  governor 
of  Syria  after  being  in  power  for  nine  years.  His  in- 
fluence continued,  however,  for  although  he  was  never 
reinstated,  he  seems  to  have  been  able  to  secure  the 
appointment  for  members  of  his  own  family  during  a 
period  of  many  years.  Caiaphas,  the  legal  high-priest, 
was  his  son-in-law.  Annas,  as  the  leader  of  aristo- 
cratic opinion  in  Jerusalem,  had  doubtless  been  fore- 
most in  the  secret  counsels  which  led  to  the  decision 
to  get  rid  of  Jesus,  hence  the  captive  was,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  taken  first  to  his  house.  The  trial  by  the 
Jewish  authorities  was  irregular.  There  seems  to 
have  been  an  informal  examination  of  Jesus  and 
various  witnesses,  first  before  Annas,  and  then  before 
Caiaphas  and  a  group  of  members  of  the  sanhedrin, 
the  outcome  of  which  was  complete  failure  to  secure 
evidence  against  Jesus  from  their  false  witnesses,  and 
the  formulation  of  a  charge  of  blasphemy  in  conse- 
quence of  his  answer  to  the  high-priest  acknowl- 
edging himself  to  be  the  Messiah  (Mark  xiv.  61-64). 
The  early  hours  before  the  day  were  given  over  to 
mockery  and  ill-usage  of   the  captive  Jesus.     When 


192  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

morning  was  come,  the  sanhedrin  was  convened,  and 
he  was  condemned  to  death   on   the   charge  of  blas- 
phemy (Mark  xv.   1;    Luke   xxii.  66-71),   and   then 
was  led  in  bonds  to  the  Roman  governor  for  execu- 
tion,   since   the    Romans   had   taken    from    the    san- 
hedrin  the   authority    to    execute    a    death    sentence 
(John  xviii.   31).     Before   Pilate   the   Jews   had   to 
name    an    offence    recognized    by    Roman   law;    his 
accusers  therefore  falsified  his   claim  and  made  him 
out  a  political  Messiah,  hostile  to  Roman  rule  (Luke 
xxiii.    1,   2).     Pilate    soon   saw  that   the  charge  was 
trumped  up,  and  sought  in  every  way,  while  keeping 
the  good-will  of  the  people,  to  escape  the  responsibility 
of  giving  sentence  against  Jesus.     His  first  effort  was 
a  simple   declaration  that  he  found   no   fault   in  the 
prisoner  (Luke  xxiii.  4);  then,  having  heard  that  he 
was  a  Galilean,  he  tried  to  transfer  the  case  to  Herod, 
who  happened  to  be  in  the  city  at  the  time  (Luke 
xxiii.  5-12);  he  then  sought  to  compromise  by  agree- 
ing to  chastise  Jesus  and  then  release  him  (Luke  xxiii. 
13-16);  next  he   offered   the  people  their  choice  be- 
tween the  innocent  Jesus  and  Barabbas,  a  convicted 
insurrectionist  (Mark  xv.  6-15;  Luke  xxiii.    16-24), 
and  the  people,  instructed  by  the  priests,  chose  Barab- 
bas, caring  nothing  for  a  Messiah   who  would   allow 
himself  to  be  arrested  without  resistance;  the  fourth 
gospel  tells  of  Pilate's  still  further  effort,  by  appeal- 
ing to  the  people's  sympathy,  to  escape  giving  sentence, 
even  after  he  had  delivered  Jesus  to  the  soldiers  for 
the  preliminary  scourging.     Finding  the  Jews  ready  to 
urge,  at  length,  a  religious  charge,   Pilate's  supersti- 
tious fear  was  roused  (John  xix.  7-12),  and  he  sought 
again   to   release   him,   but  was  finally  cowed  by  the 


PETER'S  DENIALS  193 

threat  of  an  accusation  against  him  at  Rome,  and, 
mocking  the  people  by  sitting  in  judgment  to  con- 
demn Jesus  as  their  king,  he  gave  sentence  against 
the  man  whom  he  knew  to  be  innocent  (John  xix. 
12-16). 

200.  Some  of  Jesus'  disciples  and  friends  were  wit- 
nesses of  the  early  stages  of  the  informal  trial,  in  par- 
ticular, John  (John  xviii.  15)  and  Peter.  It  was 
during  the  progress  of  the  early  examination  that 
Peter  was  drawn  into  his  denials  by  the  comments 
made  by  the  bystanders  on  his  connection  with  the 
accused.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  house  of  the 
high-priest  where  Jesus  was  tried  was  built,  like  other 
Oriental  houses,  a])out  a  court  so  that  the  room  where 
Jesus  was  examined  was  open  to  view  from  the  court. 
In  this  case  it  is  easy  to  see  how  Jesus  could  overhear 
his  disciple's  strenuous  denials  of  any  acquaintance 
with  him,  and  could  turn  and  give  him  that  look  which 
sent  him  out  to  weep  bitterly  (Luke  xxii.  61,  62). 
If  it  be  further  assumed  that  Annas  and  Caiaphas 
occupied  different  sides  of  the  same  high-priestly 
palace,  the  double  examination  reported  by  John 
would  still  be  within  hearing  from  the  one  court  in 
which  the  faithless  disciple  was  a  fascinated  witness  of 
his  Master's  trial. 

201.  Humanly  speaking,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
fate  of  Jesus  was  sealed  when  the  Sadducean  leaders 
came  to  look  on  him  seriously  as  a  danger  to  the  State 
(John  xi.  47-50,  note  the  mention  of  chief  priests). 
The  religious  opposition  was  serious,  and  might  have 
brought  trouble,  in  some  such  way  as  it  seems  to  have 
done  to  John  the  Baptist  (see  Matt.  xvii.  10-13; 
Luke  xiii.  31,  32) ;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  gov- 

13 


194  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

ernor  would  have  given  much  attention  to  a  charge 
not  urged  by  the  men  of  influence  in  Jerusalem.  The 
notable  thing  in  connection  with  the  last  days  of 
Jesus'  life  is  the  joint  opposition  of  Sadducean  priests 
and  Pharisaic  scribes.  That  the  populace  easily 
changed  their  cry  from  "hosanna"  to  "crucify  him" 
is  not  surprising.  Their  hosannas  were  due  to  a 
complete  misconception  of  Jesus'  aim  and  purpose; 
disappointed  in  him.  they  would  be  the  earliest  to  cry 
out  against  him,  especially  when  the  choice  lay  between 
him  and  a  genuine  insurrectionist. 

202.  Each  fresh  study  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  gives  a 
fresh  impression  of  his  greatness.  He  who  but  a  few 
hours  before  was  pouring  out  his  soul  in  praj^er  that 
his  cup  might  pass,  stands  forth  as  the  one  calm  and 
undisturbed  actor  among  all  those  who  took  part  in 
the  tragic  doings  of  that  day.  His  judges  and  foes 
were  all  swayed  by  passion  and  self-interest  and  were 
ready  to  make  travesty  of  justice,  from  the  leaders  of 
the  sanhedrin  who  condemned  him  on  one  charge  and 
accused  him  to  the  governor  on  another,  to  the  gover- 
nor himself,  who  appeared  determined  to  release  him 
if  he  could  do  it  without  risk  of  personal  popularity, 
and  who  yet,  in  order  to  avoid  accusation  at  Rome, 
gave  sentence  according  to  the  people's  will.  The 
fickle  populace  crying  "crucify  him,"  the  disciples 
who  forsook  him,  the  rock-apostle  who  denied  even 
so  much  as  knowledge  of  the  man,  show  how  all  the 
currents  of  life  about  him  were  stirred  and  full  of 
tumult.  In  all  this,  of  which  he  was  the  occasion  and 
centre,  he  stands  the  supreme  example  of  dignity,  self- 
mastery,  and  quietness.  This  is  seen  in  his  silence  in 
the  presence  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  and  later  before 


THE   CRUCIFIXION  195 

Pilate ;  in  his  frank  avowal  of  his  Messianic  claim  in 
reply  to  the  high-priest's  challenge,  and  of  his  kingly 
rank  in  answer  to  the  governor's  question ;  and  in  the 
look  of  reproof  which  he  turned  upon  Peter.  Not 
that  he  was  without  feeling.  There  is  strong  sense  of 
outrage  in  his  words,  "  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  wit- 
ness of  the  evil,  but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  me  ?  " 
It  was  not  the  quietness  of  stoic  indifference,  but  of 
perfect  self-devotion  to  the  Father's  will.  He  main- 
tained it  from  the  time  of  his  arrest  to  the  last  cry  of 
trust  with  w^hich  he  committed  his  spirit  to  his  Father. 

203.  The  scourging  over,  the  mock  homage  of  the 
soldiers  done,  he  was  led  out  beyond  the  city  wall 
to  be  crucified.  The  exact  place  of  the  crucifixion 
can  be  determined  as  little  as  that  of  Gethsemane, 
though  there  is  a  tradition  from  the  fourth  century, 
and  in  addition  there  are  many  conjectures.  Jesus 
was  led,  apparently,  to  the  ordinary  place  of  criminal 
execution,  and  with  two  others,  probably  insurrec- 
tionary robbers  like  those  with  whom  Barabbas  had 
been  associated,  he  was  crucified.  Two  episodes  in 
the  journey  to  the  place  of  crucifixion  are  recorded, 
—  the  help  which  Simon  of  Cyrene  was  compelled  to 
give  to  Jesus  in  carrying  his  cross  (Mark  xv.  21),  and 
the  word  of  Jesus  to  those  who,  following  him,  be- 
wailed his  fate  (Luke  xxiii.  27-31). 

204.  Of  the  cruelty  and  torture  of  crucifixion  much 
has  been  written  and  often.  It  would  be  difiicult  to 
exaggerate  it.  The  death  by  the  cross  was  a  death  by 
hunger  and  exhaustion  in  ordinary  cases ;  it  was  thus 
torture  prolonged  for  many  hours.  It  is  noticeable, 
however,  that  it  is  not  the  suffering  but  the  disgrace 
and  shame  of  the  cross  that  occupied  the  thought  of 


196  THE  LIEE  OF  JESUS 

the  apostolic  days.  Indeed,  were  physical  suffering 
chiefly  to  be  considered,  it  would  have  to  be  owned 
that  the  fact  that  Jesus  died  within  a  few  hours  re- 
leased him  from  the  most  excruciating  pains  incident 
to  this  barbarous  form  of  execution.  The  later  as- 
cetic thought  loved,  and  still  loves,  to  dwell  on  the 
physical  torments  of  the  Lord's  death.  They  were 
severe  enough  to  give  us  awe ;  but  the  biblical  writers 
show  a  much  healthier  mind,  and  their  thought  does 
not  invite  comparison  between  the  pains  endured  by 
the  Master  and  those  which  some  of  his  martyred  fol- 
lowers bore  with  great  fortitude.  The  disgrace  of 
the  cross  was  the  uttermost;  for  the  Romans  it  was 
the  death  of  a  slave,  for  the  Jews  it  was  patent  proof 
of  the  curse  of  God  (Deut.  xxi.  23).  The  obedience 
of  Jesus  was  unlimited  when  he  submitted  to  death 
(Phil.  ii.  8).  It  is  on  the  shame  of  the  cross,  and 
on  the  sacrifice  of  himself  for  the  life  of  the  world 
when  in  obedience  to  his  Father's  will  he  "despised 
the  shame,"  that  the  thought  of  the  apostolic  day  laid 
emphasis.  In  this  experience  Jesus  found  himself  in 
truth  numbered  with  the  transgressors;  he  was  the 
object  of  scorn  for  all  them  that  passed  by^  they 
mocked  at  him,  at  his  works,  and  at  his  confident  trust 
in  God.  In  this  last  extremity  the  darkness  of  Geth- 
semane  again  swept  over  Jesus'  soul,  when  he  cried 
out  "My  God,  my  God,"  recalling  the  words  of  one 
of  the  saints  of  old  in  his  hour  of  distress  (Ps.  xxii.). 
Yet,  like  him,  Jesus  kept  hold  on  the  certainty  of 
deliverance;  the  darkness  passed  at  length. 

205.  The  evangelists  preserve  several  sayings  of 
Jesus  from  the  cross,  the  records  of  the  different 
gospels  being  remarkably  diverse.     Mark  and  Mat^ 


THE  WORDS  FROM  THE  CROSS  197 

thew  record  the  exclamation,  "My  God,  my  God 
{Elo%  Moi),  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me,"  which  the 
bystander  misconstrued  as  a  call  for  Elijah,  think- 
ing this  pseudo-Messiah  was  reproaching  Elijah  for 
failing  to  come  to  his  help.  The  same  gospels  tell  of 
the  loud  cry  with  which  Jesus  died.  Luke  omits  the 
call  Moi,  and  gives  in  place  of  the  last  expiring  cry 
the  prayer  of  trust,  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I  com- 
mend my  spirit "  (xxiii.  46).  Earlier,  however,  this 
gospel  tells  of  Jesus'  word  to  the  penitent  robber, 
"  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise  "  (xxiii.  43)  ^ 
and  of  the  prayer  for  his  foes,  that  is,  for  the  Jew- 
ish people  who  blindly  condemned  him  (xxiii.  34). 
The  oldest  manuscripts  cause  some  doubt  whether  this 
last  saying  was  originally  a  part  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 
If  it  was  not  it  would  belong  in  the  same  class  with 
the  story  of  the  sinful  woman  which  we  now  find  in 
John,  both  being  authentic  records  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  though  from  some  other  source  than  that  in  which 
we  now  find  them.  The  fourth  gospel  gives  quite  an 
independent  group  of  sayings.  It  interprets  the  dying 
cry  as,  "It  is  finished"  (xix.  30),  and  preceding  this 
it  gives  the  cry,  "  I  thirst "  (xix.  28),  which  led  to  the 
offering  of  the  vinegar  of  which  the  first  two  gospels 
speak.  Earlier  it  tells  of  the  committal  of  Mary  to 
the  care  of  the  beloved  disciple  (xix.  26,  27).  Of  these 
seven  sayings,  "Eloi,"  "I  thirst,"  "Father,  into  thy 
hand  I  commend  my  spirit,"  and  "It  is  finished"  be- 
long to  the  last  hours  of  the  life  of  the  crucified  one, 
after  the  darkness  of  which  the  first  three  gospels 
speak  had  overshadowed  the  land.  Of  the  cause  of 
that  darkness  they  give  no  hint,  for  Luke's  expression 
cannot  mean  an  eclipse,  since  an  eclipse  at  Passover 


198  THE  LIPE   OF  JESUS 

time,  that  is,  at  full  moon,  is  an  impossibility.  The 
conjecture  that  dense  clouds  hid  the  sun  is  common, 
and  is  as  suitable  as  any  other.  Whatever  the  cause, 
the  evangelists  saw  in  it  a  token  of  nature's  awe  at 
the  death  of  the  Son  of  God.  During  the  hours  of 
the  darkness  the  waves  swept  over  his  soul,  as  the  cry 
"my  God"  shows  to  our  reverent  thought.  But  the 
last  word  of  trust  proves  that  the  dying  Jesus  was  not 
forsaken,  and  that  Calvary,  like  Gethsemane,  was  a 
battle  won.  The  earlier  sayings  all  express  Jesus' 
continued  spirit  of  ministry,  showing  even  in  his  bitter 
pain  his  accustomed  thoughtfuluess  for  others'  need. 
206.  It  is  futile  to  speculate  on  the  cause  of  Jesus' 
early  death.  He  certainly  suffered  a  much  shorter 
time  than  was  ordinarily  the  case,  as  appears  in  the 
fact  that  at  sunset  it  was  necessary  to  break  the  legs 
of  the  robbers  so  as  to  hasten  death,  Jesus  having 
already  been  some  time  dead.  There  is  something 
attractive  in  the  theory  of  Dr.  Stroud  (The  Physical 
Cause  of  Christ's  Death)  that  Jesus  died  of  rupture 
of  the  heart.  It  may  have  been  true,  but  the  evi- 
dences on  which  he  based  his  argument  are  insuffi- 
cient for  proof.  To  the  Jews  the  death  of  their 
victim  did  not  give  all  the  satisfaction  they  desired. 
In  the  first  place,  Pilate  insisted  on  mocking  them  by 
posting  over  the  head  of  Jesus  the  placard,  "  The  King 
of  the  Jews  "  (see  John  xix.  19-22) ;  moreover,  their 
haste  had  brought  the  crime  into  close  proximity 
to  the  feast  which  they  were  eager  to  keep  from 
defilement;  so  that  they  had  still  to  beg  of  Pilate  that 
he  would  hasten  the  death  of  the  victims,  that  their 
bodies  might  not  remain  to  desecrate  the  following 
Sabbath  sanctity  (John  xix.   31-37);  while  for  those 


THE  BURIAL  OF  JESUS  199 

who  witnessed  it  the  death  of  Jesus  deepened  the 
impression  that  a  hideous  crime  had  been  committed 
in  the  slaughter  of  an  innocent  man  (Mark  xv.  39). 

207.  Among  the  bystanders  few  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  were  to  be  found  —  they  were  hiding  in  fear. 
Yet  some  faithful  women,  and  two  courageous  coun- 
cillors of  Jerusalem,  were  bold  enough  to  make  their 
loyalty  known.  These  two  men,  Joseph  of  Arimathea 
and  Nicodemus,  were  members  of  the  sanhedrin,  but 
they  had  had  no  part  in  the  condemnation  of  Jesus; 
and  after  knowing  that  he  was  dead,  Joseph  begged 
of  Pilate  the  body,  and  he  and  Nicodemus  took  Jesus 
down  from  the  cross  and  laid  him  in  a  tomb  which 
Joseph  owned  near  the  place  of  crucifixion,  rendering- 
such  tender  ministries  as  were  possible  in  the  closing- 
hours  of  the  day.  The  women  who  had  witnessed  his 
end  meanwhile  were  arranging  also  to  anoint  the 
body.  They  took  notice  where  the  two  friends  had 
laid  him,  and  then  went  away  to  rest  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  according  to  the  commandment. 

208.  To  the  Jews  it  was  a  high  day,  the  first  Sab- 
bath in  the  eight  days  of  their  holy  feast  (John  xix. 
31).  They  had  eagerly  guarded  their  conduct  that 
no  ceremonial  defilement  might  prevent  their  sharing 
in  the  paschal  feast.  They  believed  that  they  had  rid 
their  nation  of  a  dangerous  disturber  of  its  peace,  and 
men  whose  conscience  shrank  not  from  making  God's 
house  a  house  of  merchandise,  who  would  punish  one 
who  ventured  to  cure  a  mortal  disease  if  it  chanced  to 
cross  their  Sabbath  traditions,  who  had  condemned  to 
death  the  holiest  man  and  godliest  teacher  the  world 
had  ever  seen  because  he  did  not  square  with  their 
heartless  formalism,  —  such  men  hardly  had  conscience 


200  THE   LIFE  OF  JESUS 

enough  to  feel  repentance  or  remorse  for  the  cowardly 
injustice  and  crime  with  which  of  their  own  choice 
they  had  reddened  their  hands  (Matt,  xxvii.  25). 
They  doubtless  kept  their  feast  with  satisfaction.  Not 
a  few  hearts,  however,  were  heavy  with  grief  and 
disappointed  hope.  They  had  believed  that  Jesus 
"was  he  that  should  redeem  Israel  "  (Luke  xxiv.  21). 
Stunned,  they  could  not  throw  away  the  faith  which 
he  had  kindled  in  their  hearts.  Yet  he  was  dead,  and 
only  faintly,  if  at  all,  did  they  recall  his  prediction 
of  suffering  and  his  certainty  of  triumph  through  it 
all  (John  XX.  9).  What  remained  for  them  was  the 
last  tender  ministry  to  their  dead  Lord. 


OUTLINE  OF  EVENTS   AFTER  THE   RESURRECTION 

The  day  of  the  resurrection  —  Sunday.     The  visit  of  the  women  to 

the  tomb  —  Matt,  xxviii.  1-8 ;   Mark  xvi.  1-8  ;    Luke  xxiv. 

1-12 ;  John  xx.  1-10. 
Jesus'  first  appearance ;  to  Mary  —  Matt,  xxviii.  9    10 ;   [Mark 

xvi.  9-11]  ;  John  xx.  11-18. 
The  report  of  the  watch  —  Matt,  xxviii.  11-15. 
The  appearance  to  Simon  Peter  —  I.  Cor.  xv.  5. 
The  walk  to  Emmaus  — [Mark  xvi.  12,  13] ;  Luke  xxiv.  13-35. 
The  appearance  to  the  ten  in  the  evening  —  [Mark  xvi.  11]  ;  Luke 

xxiv.  36-13;  John  xx.  19-25;  I.  Cor.  xv.  5. 
One  week  later  —  Sunday.     The  appearance  to  the  eleven,  with 

Thomas  —  John  xx.  26-29. 
Later  appearances.    To  seven  disciples  by  the  sea  of    Galilee  — 

John  xxi.  1-24. 
To  a  company  of  disciples  in   Galilee  —  Matt,  xxviii.    16-20; 

[Mark  xvi.  15-18] ;  I.  Cor.  xv.  6. 
The  appearance  to  James  —  I.  Cor.  xv.  7. 
To  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem,  followed  by  the  ascension  —  Mark 

xvi.  19,  20 ;  Luke  xxiv.  44-53 ;  Acts  i.  1-12 ;  I.  Cor.  xv.  7. 


IX 

THE  EESUEKECTION 

209.  Christianity  as  a  historic  religious  move- 
ment starts  from  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the 
dead.  This  is  very  clear  in  the  preaching  and  writings 
of  Paul.  The  first  distinctively  Christian  feature  in 
his  address  at  Athens  is  his  statement  that  God  had 


202  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

designated  Jesus  to  be  the  judge  of  men  by  having 
"  raised  him  from  the  dead "  (Acts  xvii.  31),  and 
for  him  the  resurrection  was  the  demonstration  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ  (Rom.  i.  4),  and  the  confirmation  of 
the  Christian  hope  (I.  Cor.  xv.).  With  him  the  prime 
qualification  for  an  apostle  was  that  he  should  have 
seen  the  risen  Lord  (I.  Cor.  ix.  1).  The  early  preach- 
ing as  recorded  in  Acts  shows  the  same  feature,  for 
after  repeated  testimony  to  the  fact  that  God  had 
raised  up  Jesus,  Peter  summed  up  his  address  with 
the  declaration,  "  Let  all  the  house  of  Israel  therefore 
know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  him  both  Lord 
and  Christ,  this  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified"  (Acts  ii. 
36).  In  fact  the  buoyancy  of  hope  and  confidence 
of  faith  which  gave  to  the  despised  followers  of  the 
Nazarene  their  strength  resulted  directly  from  the 
experiences  of  the  days  which  followed  the  deep  gloom 
that  settled  over  the  disciples  when  Jesus  died. 

210.  It  can  but  seem  strange  to  us  that  after  Jesus 
had  so  often  foretold  his  death  and  the  resurrection 
which  should  follow  it,  his  disciples  were  thrown  into 
despair  by  the  cross.  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nico- 
demus  when  they  embalmed  his  body  may  not  have 
known  of  these  teachings  which  Jesus  gave  to  the 
nearer  circle  of  his  followers,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  the  women  who  prepared  their  spices 
to  anoint  his  body  (Mark  xvi.  1)  had  heard  nothing 
of  these  predictions,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  apostles 
who  received  with  incredulity  the  first  news  of  the 
resurrection  were  the  men  whom  Jesus  had  sought  to 
prepare  for  this  glorious  victory.  The  disciples  do 
not  seem  to  have  finished  "questioning  among  them- 
selves  what  the  rising   again   from  the  dead  should 


THE   INCREDULITY  OF  THE   DISCIPLES  203 

mean  "  (Mark  ix.  10,  compare  Luke  xviii.  34)  until 
Jesus  himself  explained  it  by  his  return  to  them  after 
his  crucifixion.  It  was  formerly  common  to  conclude 
from  the  scepticism  of  the  disciples  that  Jesus  could 
not  have  told  them,  as  he  is  reported  to  have  done, 
that  he  would  rise  again  the  third  day.  It  is  now 
widely  conceded,  however,  that  if  he  foresaw  and 
foretold  liis  death,  he  surely  coupled  with  it  a  promise 
of  resurrection,  otherwise  he  must  have  surrendered 
his  own  conviction  that  he  was  Messiah ;  for  a  Messiah 
taken  and  held  captive  by  death  was  apparently  as 
foreign  to  Jesus'  thought  as  it  was  unthinkable  for 
the  men  of  his  generation.  The  inability  of  the  dis- 
ciples to  adjust  their  Messianic  ideas  to  the  death  of 
their  Master  was  not  removed  by  the  rebuke  Jesus 
administered  to  Peter  at  Csesarea  Philippi;  their 
objections  were  only  silenced.  It  would  seem  that 
even  when  they  saw  his  death  to  be  inevitable,  they 
were  simply  dumb  mth  hope  that  in  some  way  he 
would  come  off  victor ;  the  cross  and  the  tomb  crushed 
out  that  hope  —  at  least  from  most  of  them.  If  one 
disciple,  his  closest  friend,  recalled  and  believed  his 
words  when  he  saw  the  empty  tomb  (John  xx.  8), 
otliers  were  cast  into  still  deeper  sorrow  by  the  report, 
and  could  only  say,  "  But  we  hoped  that  it  was  he 
which  should  redeem  Israel"  (Luke  xxiv.  21). 

211.  The  light  which  banished  the  gloom  from  the 
hearts  of  Jesus'  followers  dawned  suddenly.  There 
was  no  time  for  gradual  readjustment  of  ideas  and  the 
springing  of  hope  from  a  faith  which  would  not  die. 
The  uniform  early  tradition  is  that  Jesus  showed  him- 
self alive  to  his  disciples  "  on  the  third  day,"  that  is, 
a  little   over   thirty-six   hours   from   the  time  of  his 


204  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

death.  Not  only  the  gospels,  but  Paul,  who  wi'ote 
many  years  before  our  evangelists,  testify  to  this 
(I.  Cor.  XV.  4),  as  does  the  very  early  observance  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  "  the  Lord's  day,"  and  the 
substitution  of  "  the  third  day  "  for  "  after  three  days  " 
in  the  gospels  which  made  use  of  our  Gospel  of  Mark 
(compare  parallels  with  Mark  viii.  31 ;  ix.  31 ;  x.  34, 
and  see  Holtzmann,  NtTh  I.  309).  Of  the  events 
which  occurred  on  that  third  day  and  after,  our  earli- 
est account  is  that  of  Paul.  He  gives  a  simple  cata- 
logue of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord,  referring 
to  them  as  well  known,  in  fact  as  the  familiar  subject 
matter  of  his  earliest  teaching  (I.  Cor.  xv.  4-8).  He 
gives  definite  date  to  none  of  these  appearances,  indi- 
cating only  their  sequence.  He  tells  of  six  differ- 
ent manifestations,  beginning  with  an  appearance  to 
Cephas  on  the  third  day,  then  to  the  twelve,  then  to  a 
large  company  of  disciples,  —  above  five  hundred,  — 
then  to  James,  then  to  all  the  apostles.  The  sixth  in 
the  list  is  his  own  experience,  which  he  puts  in  the 
same  class  with  the  appearances  of  the  first  Easter 
morning.  Two  of  these  instances  are  found  only  in 
Paul's  account,  the  appearance  to  James  and  to  the 
five  hundred  brethren,  though  this  last  may  probably 
be  the  same  as  is  referred  to  in  the  Gospel  of  ]\f atthew 
(xxviii.  16-20). 

212.  The  gospel  records  are  much  fuller,  but  they  dif- 
fer from  each  other  even  more  than  they  do  from  Paul. 
Mark  is  unhappily  incomplete,  for  the  last  twelve  verses 
in  that  gospel,  as  we  have  it,  are  lacking  in  the  oldest 
manuscripts,  and  were  probably  written  by  a  second- 
century  Christian  named  Aristion,  as  a  substitute  for 
the  proper  end  of  the  gospel  which  seems  by  some  acci- 


THE  TESTIMONY  TO  THE   RESURRECTION        205 

dent  to  liave  been  lost.  These  twelve  verses  are  clearly 
compiled  from  our  other  gospels.  They  have  value  as 
indicating  the  currency  of  the  complete  tradition  in 
the  early  second  century,  but  they  contribute  nothing 
to  our  knowledge  of  the  resurrection.  All,  then,  that 
Mark  tells  is  that  the  women  who  came  early  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week  to  anoint  the  body  of  Jesus  found 
the  tomb  open  and  empty,  and  saw  an  angel  who  bade 
them  tell  the  disciples  that  the  Lord  had  risen.  How 
the  record  originally  continued  no  one  knows,  for  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  use  the  same  general  testimony  up  to 
the  point  where  Mark  breaks  off,  and  then  go  quite 
different  ways.  Of  the  two  Matthew  is  closer  to  Mark 
than  is  Luke.  The  first  gospel  adds  to  the  record  of 
the  second  an  account  of  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the 
women  as  they  went  to  report  to  the  disciples,  and  then 
tells  of  the  meeting  of  Jesus  with  the  disciples  on  a 
mountain  in  Galilee,  and  his  parting  commission  to 
them.  It  gives  no  account  of  the  ascension.  Luke 
agrees  with  JNIark  in  general  concerning  the  visit  of 
the  women  to  the  tomb,  the  angelic  vision,  and  the 
report  to  the  disciples.  He  says  nothing  of  an  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  to  the  women  on  their  flight  from  the 
tomb,  but,  if  xxiv.  12  is  genuine  (see  R.  V.  margin), 
he,  like  John,  tells  of  Peter's  visit  to  the  sepulchre. 

213.  Luke  further  reports  the  appearances  of  Jesus 
to  two  on  their  way  to  Emmaus,  to  Simon,  and  to  the 
eleven  in  Jerusalem,  —  this  last  being  blended  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  with  the  final  meeting  of  Jesus 
with  the  disciples  before  his  ascension.  The  genuine 
text  of  the  gospel  (xxiv.  50)  says  nothing  of  the  ascen- 
sion itself,  but  clearly  implies  it.  In  contrast  with 
Matthew  it  is  noticeable  that  Luke  shows  no  knowl- 


206  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

edge  of  any  appearance  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  in 
Galilee.  John  is  quite  independent  of  Mark,  as  well 
as  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  He  mentions  only  Mary 
Magdalene  in  connection  with  the  early  visit  to  the 
tomb,  though  perhaps  he  implies  the  presence  of  others 
with  her  ("  we  "  in  xx.  2).  He  tells  of  a  visit  of  Peter 
and  John  to  the  tomb,  of  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to 
Mary  Magdalene,  of  an  appearance  to  ten  of  the  dis- 
ciples in  the  evening,  and  a  week  later  to  the  eleven, 
including  Thomas.  So  far  this  gospel  makes  no  refer- 
ence to  appearances  in  Galilee ;  but  in  the  appendix 
(chapter  xxi.)  there  is  added  a  manifestation  to  seven 
disciples  as  they  were  fishing  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 

214.  Criticism  which  seeks  to  discredit  the  gospels, 
for  instance  most  recently  R^ville  in  his  "  Jesus  de 
Nazareth,"  discovers  two  separate  and  mutually  exclu- 
sive lines  of  tradition,  —  one  telling  of  appearances  in 
Galilee,  represented  by  Mark  and  the  last  chapter  in 
John,  the  other  telling  of  appearances  in  or  near  Jeru- 
salem, and  found  in  Luke  and  the  twentieth  chapter 
of  John.  It  is  said  that  the  gospels  have  sought  to 
blend  the  two  cycles,  as  when  Matthew  tells  of  an  ap- 
pearance to  the  women  in  Jerusalem  on  their  way  from 
the  tomb,  and  when  the  last  chapter  of  John  adds  to 
the  original  gospel  a  Galilean  appearance.  Luke,  how- 
ever, who  makes  no  reference  at  all  to  Galilean  mani- 
festations, is  taken  to  prove  that  originally  the  one 
cycle  knew  nothing  of  the  other.  This  theory  falls, 
however,  before  the  uniform  tradition  of  appearances  on 
the  third  day,  which  must  have  been  in  Jerusalem,  and 
the  very  early  testimony  of  Paul  to  an  appearance  to 
above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  which  could  not 
have  been  in  Judea.     It  need  not  surprise  us  that  there 


THE  APPEARANCES  OF  THE  RISEN  JESUS       207 

should  have  been  two  cycles  of  tradition,  not  however 
mutually  exclusive,  if  Jesus  did  appear  both  in  Jerusa- 
lem and  in  Galilee.  The  same  kind  of  local  interest 
which  is  supposed  to  explain  the  one-sidedness  of  the 
synoptic  story  of  the  public  ministry  would  easily  ac- 
count for  one  line  of  tradition  which  reported  Gali- 
lean appearances,  and  another  which  reported  those  in 
Jerusalem.  Luke  may  have  had  access  to  information 
which  furnished  him  only  the  Jerusalem  story.  John 
and  Peter,  however,  must  have  known  the  wider  facts. 
The  very  divergences  and  seeming  contradictions  of  the 
gospels,  troublesome  as  they  are,  indicate  how  com- 
pletely certainty  regarding  the  fact  of  the  resurrection 
removed  from  the  thought  of  the  apostolic  day  nice 
carefulness  concerning  the  testimony  to  individual 
manifestations  of  the  risen  Lord.  Doubtless  the  first 
preaching  rested,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul,  on  a  simple 
"I  have  seen  the  Lord."  When  later  the  detailed 
testimony  was  wanted  for  written  gospels,  it  had  suf- 
fered the  lot  common  to  orally  transmitted  records,  and 
divergences  had  sprung  up  which  it  is  no  longer 
possible  for  us  to  resolve.  They  do  not,  however, 
challenge  the  fact  which  lies  behind  all  the  varied 
testimony. 

215.  A  general  view  of  the  events  of  that  third  day 
and  those  which  followed  can  be  constructed  from  our 
gospels  and  Paul.  Early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
certain  women,  including  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the 
mother  of  James  and  Joses,  Salome,  Joanna,  and  others, 
came  to  anoint  the  body  of  Jesus.  On  their  arrival 
they  found  that  the  stone  had  been  rolled  back  from 
the  tomb.  Mary  Magdalene  saw  that  the  grave  was 
empty  and  ran  to  tell  Peter  and  John.    The  others  saw 


208  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

also  a  vision  of  angels  which  said  that  Jesus  was  alive 
and  would  see  his  disciples  in  Galilee,  and  ran  to  re- 
port this  to  the  disciples.  Meanwhile  Mary  Magdalene 
returned,  following  Peter  and  John  who  ran  to  see 
the  tomb,  and  found  it  empty  as  she  had  said.  She 
lingered  after  they  left,  and  Jesus  appeared  to  her, 
she  mistaking  him  at  first  for  the  gardener.  She  then 
went  to  tell  the  disciples  that  she  had  seen  the  Lord. 
These  events  evidently  occurred  in  the  early  morning. 
The  next  incident  reported  is  that  of  the  walk  of  two 
disciples,  not  of  the  twelve,  to  Emmaus,  and  the  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus  to  them.  At  first  they  did  not 
recognize  him,  not  even  when  he  taught  them  out  of 
the  scriptures  the  necessity  that  the  Messiah  should 
die.  He  was  made  known  when  at  evening  he  sat 
down  with  them  to  a  familiar  meal.  Either  before  or 
after  this  event  he  had  shown  himself  to  Peter.  This 
is  the  first  manifestation  reported  by  Paul.  If  Luke 
xxiv.  12  is  genuine  (see  R.  V.  margin),  he  also  tells 
that  when  the  two  again  reached  Jerusalem  the 
apostles  received  them  with  the  news  that  Peter  had 
seen  the  Lord.  That  same  evening  Jesus  appeared  sud- 
denly among  the  disciples  in  their  well-guarded  upper 
room.  His  coming  was  such  that  he  had  to  convince 
the  disciples  that  he  was  not  simply  a  disembodied 
spirit.  Luke  says  that  he  did  this  by  bidding  them 
handle  him,  and  by  eating  part  of  a  fish  before  them. 
According  to  John,  Thomas  was  not  with  the  others 
at  this  first  meeting  with  the  disciples.  A  week 
later,  presumably  in  Jerusalem,  Jesus  again  mani- 
fested himself  to  the  little  company,  Thomas  being 
with  them,  and  dispelled  the  doubt  of  that  disciple 
who  loved  too  deeply  to  indulge  a  hope  which  might 


THE   HARMONISTIC  DIFFICULTY  209 

only  disappoint.  He  had  but  to  see  in  order  to  be- 
lieve, and  make  supreme  confession  of  his  faith.  The 
next  appearance  was  probably  that  to  the  seven  dis- 
ciples by  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  when  Peter,  who  denied 
thrice,  was  thrice  tested  concerning  his  love  for  his 
Lord.  Then  apparently  followed  the  meeting  on  the 
mountain  reported  in  Matthew,  which  was  probably 
the  same  as  the  appearance  to  the  five  hundred  breth- 
ren ;  then,  probably  still  in  Galilee,  Jesus  appeared  to 
his  brother  James,  who  from  that  time  on  was  a  leader 
among  the  disciples.  The  next  manifestation  of  which 
record  is  preserved  was  the  final  one  in  Jerusalem,  after 
which  Jesus  led  his  disciples  out  as  far  as  Bethany  and 
was  separated  from  them,  henceforth  to  be  thought  of 
by  them  as  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

216.  This  construction  of  the  story  as  given  in 
the  New  Testament  does  violence  to  the  accounts 
in  one  particular.  It  holds  that  Matthew's  report  of 
the  meeting  of  Jesus  with  the  women  on  their  way 
from  the  tomb  on  Easter  morning  is  to  be  identified 
with  his  meeting  with  Mary  Magdalene.  This  can 
be  done  only  if  it  is  supposed  that  in  the  trans- 
mission of  the  tradition  the  commission  given  the 
women  by  the  angel  (Mark  xvi.  6  f.)  became  blended 
with  the  message  given  to  Mary  by  the  Lord  (John 
XX.  17),  the  result  being  virtually  the  same  for  the 
religious  interest  of  the  first  Christians,  while  for  the 
historic  interest  of  our  days  it  constitutes  a  discrep- 
ancy. The  difficulty  is  less  on  this  supposition  than 
on  any  other.  It  is  highly  significant  that  the  account 
of  the  most  indubitable  fact  in  the  view  of  the  early 
Christians  is  the  most  difficult  portion  of  the  gospels 
for  the  exact  harmonist  to  deal  with.     This  is  not  of 

14 


210  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

serious  moment  for  the  historical  student.     It  is  rather 
a  warning  against  theoretical  ideas  of  inspiration. 

217.  The  universal  acknowledgment  that  the  early 
Christians  firmly  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  their 
Lord  has  made  the  origin  of  that  firm  conviction  a 
question  of  primary  importance.  The  simple  facts  as 
set  forth  in  the  New  Testament  serve  abundantly  to 
account  for  the  faith  of  the  early  church,  but  they  not 
only  involve  a  large  recognition  of  the  miraculous, 
they  also  contain  perplexities  for  those  who  do  not 
stumble  at  the  supernatural;  hence  there  have  been 
many  attempts  to  find  other  solutions  of  the  problem. 
Some  of  the  explanations  offered  may  be  dismissed 
with  a  word :  for  instance,  those  which,  in  one  form 
or  other,  renew  the  old  charge  found  in  the  first 
gospel,  that  the  disciples  stole  the  body  of  Jesus,  and 
then  declared  that  he  had  risen;  and  those  which 
assume  that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  apparent  only, 
that  he  fainted  on  the  cross,  and  then  the  chill  of 
the  night  air  and  of  the  sepulchre  served  to  revive 
him,  so  that  in  the  morning  he  was  able  to  leave 
the  tomb  and  appear  to  his  disciples  as  one  risen 
from  the  dead.  This  apparent-death  theor}?-  involves 
Jesus  in  an  ugly  deception,  while  the  theory  that 
the  disciples  or  any  group  of  them  removed  the 
body  of  Jesus  and  then  gave  currency  to  the  notion 
that  he  had  risen,  builds  the  greatest  ethical  and 
religious  movement  known  to  history  on  a  lie.  A 
slightly  different  explanation  which  was  very  early 
suggested  was  that  the  Jews  themselves,  or  perhaps 
the  gardener,  had  the  body  removed,  and  that  when 
Mary  found  the  tomb  empty  she  let  her  faith  conclude 
that  his  absence  must  be  due  to  his  resurrection. 


THE  VISION  HYPOTHESIS  211 

218.  This  last  explanation  has  in  recent  times 
been  revived  in  connection  with  the  so-called  vision- 
hjpothesis  by  Renan  and  Rdville.  Mary  found  the  tomb 
empty,  and  being  herself  of  a  highly  strung  nervous 
nature  —  she  had  been  cured  by  Jesus  of  seven  devils 
—  by  thinking  about  the  empty  tomb  she  soon  worked 
herself  into  an  ecstasy  in  which  her  eyes  seemed  to 
behold  what  her  heart  desired  to  see.  She  communi- 
cated her  vision  to  the  others,  and  by  a  sort  of  nervous 
contagion,  they,  too,  fell  to  seeing  visions,  and  it  is 
the  report  of  these  that  we  have  in  the  gospels.  The 
vision-hypothesis  takes  with  some,  Strauss  for  instance, 
a  different  form.  These  deny  that  the  tomb  was  found 
empty  at  all,  and  regard  this  story  as  a  contribution  of 
the  later  legend-making  spirit.  They  hold  that  the 
disciples  fled  from  Jerusalem  as  soon  as  the  death  of 
Jesus  was  an  assured  fact,  and  not  until  after  they 
found  themselves  amid  the  familiar  scenes  of  Galilee, 
did  their  faith  recover  from  the  shock  it  had  received 
in  Jerusalem.  In  Galilee  the  experiences  of  their  life 
with  Jesus  were  lived  over  again,  and  the  old  confi- 
dence in  him  as  Messiah  revived.  Thus  thinking 
about  the  Lord,  their  hearts  would  say,  "He  cannot 
have  died,"  and  after  a  while  their  faith  rose  to  the 
conviction  which  declared,  "  He  is  not  dead ;  "  then 
they  passed  into  an  ecstatic  mood  and  visions  followed 
which  are  the  germ  out  of  which  the  gospel  stories 
have  grown. 

219.  These  different  forms  of  the  vision-hypothesis 
have  been  subjected  to  most  searching  criticism  by 
Keim,  who  is  all  the  more  severe  because  his  own 
thought  has  so  much  that  is  akin  to  them.  There 
are  two  objections  which  refute  the  hypothesis.     The 


212  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

first  is  that  tlie  uniform  tradition  which  connects  the 
resurrection  and  the  first  appearances  witli  the  ''  third 
day  "  after  the  crucifixion  leaves  far  too  short  a  time 
for  the  recovery  of  faith  and  the  growth  of  ecstatic 
feeling  wliich  are  requisite  for  these  visions,  even  sup- 
posing that  the  disciples'  faith  had  such  recuperative 
powers.  The  second  is  that  once  such  an  ecstatic 
mood  was  acquired  it  would  be  according  to  expe- 
rience in  analogous  cases  for  the  visions  to  con- 
tinue, if  not  to  increase,  as  the  thought  of  the  risen 
Lord  grew  more  clear  and  familiar  ;  yet  the  tradition 
is  uniform  that  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ 
ceased  after,  at  most,  a  few  weeks.  The  only  later 
one  was  that  which  led  to  the  conversion  of  Paul ;  and 
though  Paul  was  a  man  somewhat  given  to  ecstatic 
experiences  (see  II.  Cor.  xii.),  he  carefully  distin- 
guishes in  his  own  thought  his  seeing  of  the  Lord  and 
his  heavenly  visions.  In  a  word,  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
never  showed  a  more  healthy,  normal  life  than  that 
which  gave  them  strength  to  found  a  church  of  be- 
lievers in  the  resurrection  in  the  face  of  persecution 
and  scorn. 

220.  Keim  seeks  to  avoid  the  difficulties  which  his 
own  acute  criticism  disclosed  in  the  ordinary  vision- 
theory,  by  another  which  rejects  the  gospel  stories  as 
legendary,  yet  frankly  acknowledges  that  the  faith  of 
the  apostles  in  the  resurrection  was  based  on  a  miracle. 
Their  certainty  was  so  unshakable,  so  uniform,  so 
abiding,  that  it  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  acknowl- 
edging that  they  did  actually  see  the  Lord.  This  see- 
ing, however,  was  not  with  the  eyes  of  sense,  but  with 
the  spiritual  vision,  which  properly  perceives  what 
pertains  to  the  spirit  world  into  which  the  glorified 


THE   SPIRITUAL  PRESENCE  THEORY  213 

Lord  had  withdrawn  when  he  died.  In  his  spiritual 
estate  he  manifested  himself  to  his  disciples,  by  a 
series  of  divinely  caused  and  therefore  essentially 
objective  visions,  in  which  he  proved  to  them  abun- 
dantly that  he  was  alive,  was  victor  over  death,  and 
had  been  exalted  by  God  to  his  right  hand.  This 
theory  is  not  in  itself  offensive  to  faith.  It  concedes 
that  the  belief  of  the  disciples  rested  on  actual  disclos- 
ures of  himself  to  them  by  the  glorified  Lord.  The 
difficulty  with  the  theory  is  that  it  relegates  the  empty 
tomb  to  the  limbo  of  legend,  though  it  is  a  feature  of 
the  tradition  which  is  found  in  all  the  gospels  and 
clearly  implied  in  Paul  (I.  Cor.  xv.  4 ;  compare  Rom. 
vi.  4)  ;  it  also  fails  to  show  how  this  glorified  Christ 
came  to  be  thought  of  by  the  disciples  as  risen^  rather 
than  simply  glorified  in  spirit.  This  criticism  brings 
us  back  to  the  necessity  of  recognizing  a  resurrection 
which  was  in  some  real  sense  corporeal,  difficult  as 
that  conception  is  for  us.  The  gospels  assert  this 
with  great  simplicity  and  delicate  reserve.  They 
represent  Jesus  as  returning  to  his  disciples  with  a 
body  which  was  superior  to  the  limitations  which 
hedge  our  lives  about.  It  may  be  well  described  by 
Paul's  words,  "  It  is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised 
a  spiritual  body."  Yet  the  records  indicate  that  when 
he  willed  Jesus  could  offer  himself  to  the  perception 
of  other  senses  than  sight  and  hearing  —  "  handle  me 
and  see  "  is  not  an  invitation  that  we  expect  from  a 
spiritual  presence.  If,  however,  we  have  to  confess 
an  unsolved  mystery  here,  and  still  more  in  the  record 
of  his  eating  in  the  presence  of  the  disciples  (Luke 
xxiv.  41-43),  it  is  permitted  us  to  own  that  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  possible  conditions  of  the  fully  perfected 


214  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

life  are  not  such  as  to  warrant  great  dogmatism  in 
criticising  the  account.  The  empty  tomb,  the  objec- 
tive presence  of  the  risen  Jesus,  the  renewed  faith  of 
his  followers,  and  their  new  power  are  established  data 
for  our  thought.  "With  these,  many  of  the  details 
may  be  left  in  mystery,  because  we  have  not  yet  light 
sufficient  to  reveal  to  us  all  that  we  should  like  to 
know. 

221.  The  ascension  of  the  risen  Christ  to  his  Father 
is  the  presupposition  of  all  the  New  Testament  teach- 
ing. The  Acts,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse  join 
in  the  representation  that  he  is  now  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  In  fact  it  may  be  said  that  such  a  view 
is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  for 
the  very  idea  of  that  victory  was  that  death  had  no 
more  dominion  over  him.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that 
none  of  our  gospels  in  their  correct  text  (see  Luke 
xxiv.  51,  R.  V.  margin)  tell  of  the  ascension.  Luke 
clearly  implies  it,  and  John  says  that  Jesus  told  Mary 
to  tell  the  disciples  that  he  was  about  to  ascend  to  his 
Father  and  their  Father.  In  Luke's  later  book,  how- 
ever (Acts  i.  1-11),  he  gives  a  full  acount  of  a  last 
meeting  of  Jesus  with  the  disciples,  and  of  his  ascension 
to  heaven  before  their  eyes.  This  withdrawal  in  the 
cloud  must  be  understood  as  an  acted  parable  ;  for,  in 
reality,  there  is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  clouds 
which  hung  over  Olivet  that  day  were  any  nearer 
God's  presence  than  the  ground  on  which  the  dis- 
ciples stood.  For  them,  however,  such  a  disappear- 
ance would  signify  vividly  the  cessation  of  their 
earthly  intercourse  with  their  Lord,  and  his  return 
to  his  home  with  the  Father.  The  word  of  Jesus  to 
Mary    (John   xx.  17)    may   fairly  be   interpreted   to 


THE  NEW  FAITH  OF  THE  DISCIPLES  215 

mean  that  Jesus  had  ascended  to  the  Father  on  the 
day  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  each  of  his  subse- 
quent manifestations  of  himself  were  like  that  v/hich 
later  he  granted  to  Paul  near  Damascus.  In  fact  it 
is  easier  to  view  the  matter  in  this  way  than  to  con- 
ceive of  Jesus  as  sojourning  in  some  hidden  place 
for  forty  days  after  his  resurrection.  What  the  dis- 
ciples Avitnessed  ten  days  before  Pentecost  was  a  with- 
drawal similar  to  those  which  had  separated  liim  from 
them  frequently  during  the  recent  weeks,  only  now  set 
before  their  eyes  in  such  a  way  as  to  tell  them  that 
these  manifestations  had  reached  an  end;  they  must 
henceforth  wait  for  the  other  representative  of  God 
and  Christ,  the  Spirit,  given  to  them  at  Pentecost. 

222.  The  faith  with  which  the  disciples  waited  for 
the  promised  spirit  was  a  very  different  faith  from 
that  wliich  Peter  confessed  for  his  fellov/s  at  Csesarea 
Philippi.  It  had  the  same  supreme  attachment  to  a 
personal  friend  who  had  proved  to  be  God's  Anointed ; 
the  same  readiness  to  let  him  lead  whithersoever  he 
would;  the  same  firm  expectation  of  a  restitution  of 
all  things,  in  which  God  should  set  up  his  kingdom 
visibly,  with  Jesus  as  the  King  of  men.  Now,  how- 
ever, their  trust  was  much  fuller  than  before,  and  they 
looked  for  a  still  more  glorious  kingdom  when  their 
friend  and  Lord  should  come  from  heaven  to  assume 
his  reign.  They  expected  Christ  to  return  soon  in 
glory,  yet  his  death  and  victory  made  them  ready  to 
endure  any  persecution  for  him,  certain  that,  like  the 
sufferings  which  he  endiured,  it  would  lead  to  victory. 
These  disciples  had  no  idea  that  in  preaching  a  re- 
ligion of  personal  attachment  to  their  Master,  in  fill- 
ing  all  men's  thoughts  with   his  name,  in  building 


216  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

all  hope  on  his  return,  and  guiding  all  life  by  his 
teaching  and  spirit,  they  were  cutting  their  moor- 
ings from  the  religion  of  their  fathers.  They  remained 
loyal  to  the  law,  they  were  constant  in  the  worship ; 
but  they  had  poured  new  wine  into  the  bottles,  and 
in  time  it  proved  the  inadequacy  of  the  old  forms  and 
revolutionized  the  world's  religious  life. 


PART  III 
THE    MINISTER 


THE  FEIEKD   OF   MEN 

223.  In  nothing  does  the  contrast  between  Jesus 
and  John  the  Baptist  appear  more  clearly  than  in 
their  attitude  towards  common  social  life.  John  had 
his  training  and  did  his  work  apart  from  the  homes  of 
men.  The  wilderness  was  his  chosen  and  fit  scene  of 
labor.  From  this  solitude  he  sent  forth  his  summons 
and  warning  to  his  people.  They  who  sought  him  for 
fuller  teaching  went  after  him  and  found  him  where 
he  was.  They  then  returned  to  their  homes  and  their 
work,  leaving  the  prophet  with  his  few  disciples  in 
their  seclusion.  With  Jesus  it  was  otherwise.  His 
first  act,  after  attaching  to  himself  a  few  followers, 
was  to  go  into  Galilee  to  the  town  of  Cana,  and  there 
with  them  to  partake  in  the  festivities  of  a  wedding. 
While  it  is  true  that  most  of  his  teaching  was  by  the 
wayside,  among  the  hills,  or  by  the  sea,  it  is  still  a  sur- 
prise to  discover  how  often  his  ministry  found  its  oc- 
casion as  he  was  sitting  at  table  in  the  house  of  some 
friend,  real  or  feigned.  The  genuine  friendships  of 
Jesus  as  they  appear  in  the  gospels  are  among  the  most 
characteristic  features  of  his  life  —  witness  the  home 
at  Bethan}^,  the  women  who  followed  him  even  to  the 
cross,  and  ministered  to  him  of  their  substance,  and  the 
"  beloved  disciple."  Jesus  calls  attention  to  this  con- 
trast between  himself  and  John,  reminding  the  people 


220  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

liow  some  of  the  scornful  pointed  the  finger  at  him- 
self as  "  a  gluttonous  man  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend 
of  publicans  and  sinners."  He  received  his  training 
as  a  carpenter  while  John  was  in  his  wilderness  solitude. 
Men  who  would  probably  have  stood  with  admiration 
before  John  had  he  visited  their  synagogue,  found 
Jesus  too  much  one  of  themselves,  and  would  none 
/of  him  as  a  prophet  (Mark  vi.  2,  3). 
J  224.  A  like  contrast  sets  Jesus  apart  from  the 
scribes  of  his  day.  These  were  revered  by  the  peo- 
ple, in  part  perhaps  because  they  held  the  common 
folk  in  such  contempt.  Their  attitude  was  frank  — 
"this  multitude  which  knoweth  not  the  law  is  ac- 
cursed "  (John  vii.  49).  The  popular  enthusiasm 
for  Jesus  filled  them  with  scorn,  until  it  began  to 
give  them  alarm.  They  were  glad  to  be  reverenced 
by  the  people,  to  interpret  the  law  for  them  "  bind- 
ing heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to  be  borne ; " 
but  showed  little  genuine  interest  in  them,  w  Jesus,  en 
tiie  other  hand,  not  only  had  the  reverence  of  the 
multitudes,  but  welcomed  them.  First  his  words  and 
his  works  drew  them,  then  he  himself  enchained  their 
hearts.  Outcasts,  rich  and  poor,  crowded  into  his 
company,  and  found  him  not  only  a  teacher,  a  prophet 
of  righteousness  rebuking  their  sins  and  calling  to 
repentance,  but  a  friend,  who  was  not  ashamed  to  be 
seen  in  their  homes,  to  have  them  among  his  closest 
attendants,  and  to  be  known  as  their  champion. |  It 
was  when  such  as  these  were  pressing  upon  him  to 
hear  him  that  Jesus  replied  to  the  criticism  of  the 
scribes  in  the  three  parables  of  recovered  treasure  which 
stand  among  the  rarest  gems  of  the  Master's  teach- 
ing (Luke  XV.). 


JESUS'  ATTITUDE  TO  WEALTH  221 

225.  One  class  only  in  the  community  failed  of  his 
sympathy,  —  the  self-righteous  hypocrites,  who  thought 
that  godliness  consisted  in  scrupulous  regard  for  pious 
ceremonies,  and  that  zeal  was  most  laudable  when 
directed  to  the  removal  of  motes  from  their  brothers' 
eyes.  For  these  Jesus  had  words  of  rebuke  and  burn- 
ing scorn.  It  has  been  common  with  some  to  em- 
phasize his  friendship  for  the  poor  as  if  he  chose  them 
for  their  poverty,  and  the  unlettered  for  their  igno- 
rance. Yet  Jesus  had  no  faster  friends  than  the 
women  who  followed  from  Galilee  and  ministered  to 
him  of  their  substance,  and  the  two  sanhedrists,  Joseph 
whose  new  tomb  received  his  body,  and  Nicodemus 
whose  liberality  provided  the  spices  which  embalmed 
him ;  for  these,  and  not  the  Galilean  fishermen,  were 
faithful  to  the  last  at  the  cross  and  at  the  grave.  In 
no  home  did  Jesus  find  a  fuller  or  more  welcome 
friendship  than  in  Bethany,  where  all  that  is  told  us  of 
its  conditions  suggests  the  opposite  of  poverty.  The 
rich  young  ruler,  who  showed  his  too  great  devotion 
to  his  possessions,  would  hardly  have  sought  out  Jesus 
with  his  question,  if  he  was  known  as  the  champion 
of  poverty  as  in  itself  essential  to  godliness.  The 
demand  made  of  him  surprised  him,  and  was  suited 
to  his  special  case.  Jesus  saw  clearl}^  the  difficulties 
wliich  wealth  puts  in  the  way  of  faith,  but  he  recog- 
nized the  power  of  God  to  overcome  them,  and  when 
Zaccheus  turned  disciple,  the  demand  for  complete 
surrender  of  possessions  was  not  repeated.  On  the 
contrary  Jesus  taught  his  disciples  that  even  "  the 
unrighteous  mammon  "  should  be  used  to  win  friends 
(Luke  xvi.  9),  so  ministering  unto  some  of  "  the  least 
of  these  my  brethren  "  (Matt.  xxv.  40).    The  beatitude 


222  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

in  Luke's  report  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount  (Luke 
vi.  20)  was  not  for  the  poor  as  poor  simply,  but  for 
those  poor  folk  lightly  esteemed  who  had  spiritual 
sense  enough  to  follow  Jesus,  while  the  well-to-do  as 
a  class  were  content  with  the  "  consolation "  already 
in  hand.  Jesus'  interest  was  in  character,  wherever  it 
was  manifest,  whether  in  the  repentance  of  a  chief  of 
the  publicans,  or  in  the  widow  woman's  gift  of  "  all 
her  living;"  whether  it  appeared  in  the  hunger  for 
truth  shown  by  Nicodemus,  a  teacher  of  Israel,  or  in 
the  woman  that  was  a  sinner  who  washed  his  feet 
with  her  tears.  He  was  the  great  revealer  of  the 
worth  of  simple  humanity,  in  man,  woman,  or  child. 
Our  world  has  never  seen  another  who  so  surely  pene- 
trated all  masks  or  disguising  circumstances  and  found 
the  man  himself,  and  having  found  him  loved  him. 

226.  This  sympathy  for  simple  manhood  was  mani- 
fested in  a  genuine  interest  in  the  common  life  of  men 
in  business,  pleasure,  or  trouble.  It  is  significant  that 
the  first  exercise  of  his  miraculous  power  should  have 
been  to  relieve  the  embarrassment  of  his  host  at  a 
wedding  feast.  Doubtless  we  are  to  understand  that 
the  miracle  had  a  deeper  purpose  than  simply  supply- 
ing the  needed  wine  (John  ii.  11)  ;  but  the  significant 
thing  is  that  Jesus  should  choose  to  manifest  his  glory 
in  this  way.  It  shows  a  genuine  appreciation  of  social 
life  quite  impossible  to  an  ascetic  like  the  Baptist. 
The  same  appears  in  the  way  Jesus  allowed  his 
publican  apostle  to  introduce  him  to  his  former  asso- 
ciates, to  the  great  scandal  of  the  Pharisees;  for  a 
feast  at  which  Jesus  and  a  number  of  publicans  were 
the  chief  guests  accorded  not  with  religion  as  they 
understood  it.     Jesus,  hov/ever,  seems  to  have  found 


THE  PERSONAL  SYMPATHY  OF  JESUS  22B 

it  a  welcome  opportunity  to  seek  some  of  his  lost 
sheep.  The  illustrations  which  he  used  in  his  teaching 
were  often  his  best  introduction  to  the  common  heart, 
for  they  were  drawn  from  the  occupations  of  the 
people  who  came  to  listen ;  while  the  aid  Jesus  gave 
to  his  disciples  in  their  fishing  showed  not  only  his 
power,  but  also  his  respect  for  their  work,  a  respect 
further  proved  when  he  called  them  to  be  fishers  of 
men. 

227.  Beyond  this  interest  in  life's  joy  and  its  occu- 
pations was  that  unfailing  sympathy  with  its  troubles 
which  drew  the  multitudes  to  him.  |  He  was  far  more 
than  a  healer;  he  studied  to  rid  the  people  of  the 
idea  that  he  v/as  a  mere  miracle-monger.  He  healed 
them  because  he  loved  them,  and  he  asked  of  those 
who  sought  his  help  that  they  too  should  feel  the 
personal  relation  into  which  his  power  had  brought 
them./  This  seems  to  be  in  part  the  significance  of  his 
uniform  demand  for  faith.  Doubtless  Mary,  out  of 
whom  he  had  cast  seven  devils,  and  Simon  the  leper, 
who  seems  to  have  experienced  his  power  to  heal,  are 
only  single  instances  of  many  who  found  in  him  far 
more  than  at  first  they  sought.  No  further  record 
remains  of  the  paralytic  who  carried  off  his  bed,  but 
left  the  burden  of  his  sins  behind,  nor  of  the  woman 
who  loved  much  because  she  had  been  forgiven  much, 
nor  of  the  Samaritan  whose  life  he  uncovered  that  he 
might  be  able  to  give  her  the  living  water.  Some 
who  had  his  help  for  body  or  heart  may  have  gone 
away  forgetful,  after  the  fashion  of  men,  but  in  the 
company  of  those  who  were  bold  to  bear  his  name  after 
his  resurrection  there  must  have  been  many  who  could 
not  forget.  | 


224  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

228.  Jesus'  interest  in  common  life  was  genuine, 
and  he  entered  into  it  with  his  heart.  The  incident  of 
the  anointing  of  his  feet  as  he  sat  a  guest  in  a 
Pharisee's  house  shows  that  he  was  keenly  sensitive  to 
the  treatment  he  received  at  the  hands  of  men.  He 
had  nothing  to  say  of  the  slights  his  host  had  shown 
him,  until  that  host  began  mentally  to  criticise  the 
woman  who  was  ministering  to  him  in  her  love  and 
penitence.  Then  with  quiet  dignity  Jesus  mentioned 
the  several  omissions  of  courtesy  which  he  had  noticed 
since  he  came  in,  contrasting  the  woman's  attention 
with  Simon's  neglect  (Luke  vii.  36-50).  One  of  the 
saddest  things  about  Gethsemane  was  Jesus'  vain 
pleading  with  his  disciples  for  sympathy  in  his  awful 
hour.  They  were  too  much  dazed  with  awe  and  fear 
to  lend  him  their  hearts'  support.  Pie  recognized  in- 
deed that  it  was  only  a  weakness  of  the  flesh;  yet  he 
craved  their  friendship's  help,  and  repeatedly  asked 
them  to  watch  with  him,  for  his  soul  was  exceeding  sor- 
rowful. In  contrast  with  this  disappointment  stands 
the  joy  with  which  Jesus  heard  from  Peter  the  con- 
fession which  proved  that  the  falling  off  of  popular 
enthusiasm  had  not  shaken  the  loyalty  of  his  chosen 
companions,  —  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jonah : 
for  flesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven"  (Matt.  xvi.  17). 
There  is  the  sorrow  of  loneliness  as  well  as  rebuke  in 
his  complaint,  "  O  faithless  generation,  how  long  shall 
I  be  with  you  ?  how  long  shall  I  bear  with  you  ? " 
(Mark  ix.  19),  and  the  lamentation  over  Jerusalem 
comes  from  a  longing  heart  (Luke  xiii.  34). 

229.  The  independence  of  human  sympathy  which 
Jesus  often  showed  is  all  the  more  glorious  for  the 


NOT  TO  BE  MINISTEEED  UNTO  225 

evidence  the  gospels  give  of  his  longing  for  it.  When 
he  put  the  question  to  the  twelve,  "  Would  ye  also  go 
aAvay  ?"  (John  vi.  67),  there  is  no  hint  in  his  manner 
that  their  defection  Avith  the  rest  would  turn  him  at  all 
from  faithfully  fulfilling  the  task  appointed  to  him  by 
his  Father.  In  fact  only  now  and  then  did  he  allow 
his  OAvn  hunger  to  appear.  Ordinarily  he  showed  him- 
self as  the  friend  longing  to  help,  but  not  seeking 
ministry  from  others ;  he  rather  sought  to  win  his  dis- 
ciples to  unselfishness  by  showing  as  w^ell  as  saying 
that  he  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister. 
He  washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples  to  rebuke  their 
petty  jealousies,  but  we  have  no  hint  that  he  showed 
that  he  felt  personal  neglect.  \  His  own  heart  was  full 
of  "  sorrow  even  unto  death,"  but  his  word  was,  "  Let 
not  your  heart  be  troubled  ; "  he  asked  in  vain  for  the 
sympathy  of  his  nearest  friends  in  Gethsemane,  yet 
when  the  band  came  to  arrest  him  he  pleaded,  "  Let 
these,  the  disciples,  go  their  way."/ 


15 


II 

THE  TEACHER  WITH  AUTHORITY 

230.  To  his  contemporaries  Jesus  was  primarily  a 
teacher.  The  name  by  which  he  is  oftenest  named 
in  the  gospels  is  Teacher,  —  translated  Master  in  the 
English  versions  and  the  equivalent  of  Rabbi  in  the 
language  used  by  Jesus  (John  i.  38).  People  thought 
of  him  as  a  rabbi  approved  of  God  by  liis  power  to 
work  miracles  (John  iii.  2),  but  it  was  not  the  miracles 
that  most  impressed  them.  The  popular  comment 
was,  "  He  taught  them  as  one  having  authority,  and 
not  as  the  scribes"  (Matt.  vii.  29).  Two  leading 
characteristics  of  the  scribes  Avere  their  pride  of 
learning,  and  their  bondage  to  tradition.  In  fact  the 
learning  of  which  they  were  proud  was  knowledge 
of  the  body  of  tradition  on  whose  sanctity  they  in- 
sisted ;  their  teaching  was  scholastic  and  pedantic, 
an  endless  citing  of  precedents  and  discussion  of  trifles. 
To  all  this  Jesus  presented  a  refreshing  contrast.  In 
commending  truth  to  the  people,  he  was  content  with 
a  simple  "  verily,"  and  in  defining  duty  he  rested  on 
his  unsupported  "  I  say  unto  you,"  even  when  his  dic- 
tum stood  opposed  to  that  which  had  been  said  to  them 
of  old  time. 

231.  In  this  freedom  from  the  bondage  of  tradition 
Jesus  was  not  alone.  John  the  Baptist's  message  had 
been  as  simiDle  and  unsupported  by  appeal  to  the  elders. 


THE  DIRECT  APPEAL  TO   CONSCIENCE  227 

Jesus  and  John  both  revived  the  method  of  the  older 
prophets,  and  it  is  in  hxrge  measure  due  to  this  that 
the  people  distinguished  them  clearly  from  their  or- 
dinary teachers,  and  held  them  both  to  be  prophets. 
One  thing  involved  in  this  authoritative  method  was 
a  frank  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  men.  So  com- 
pletely had  the  scribes  substituted  memory  of  tradi- 
tion for  appeal  to  the  simple  sense  of  right,  that  they 
were  utterly  dazed  when  Jesus  undertook  to  settle 
questions  of  Sabbath  observance  and  ceremonial  clean- 
liness by  asking  his  hearers  to  use  their  religious 
common  sense,  and  consider  whether  a  man  is  not 
much  better  than  a  sheep,  or  whether  a  man  is  not 
defiled  rather  by  what  comes  out  of  his  mouth  than 
by  what  enters  into  it  (Matt.  xii.  12;  Mark  vii.  15). 
Jesus  was  for  his  generation  the  great  discoverer  of  the 
conscience,  and  for  all  time  the  champion  of  its  dignity 
against  finespun  theory  and  traditional  practice.  All 
his  teaching  has  this  quality  in  greater  or  less  degree. 
It  appears  when  by  means  of  the  parable  of  the  Good 
Samaritan  he  makes  the  lawyer  answer  his  own  ques- 
tion (Luke  X.  25-37),  when  he  bids  the  multitude  in 
Jerusalem  ^' judge  not  according  to  the  appearance, 
but  judge  righteous  judgment "  (John  vii.  24),  when 
he  asks  his  inquisitors  in  the  temple  whose  image  and 
superscription  the  coin  they  used  in  common  business 
bears  (Mark  xii.  16).  His  whole  work  in  Galilee  was 
proof  of  his  confidence  that  in  earnest  souls  the  con- 
science would  be  his  ally,  and  that  he  could  impress 
himself  on  them  far  more  indelibly  than  any  sign  from 
heaven  could  enforce  his  claim. 

232.    Jesus  was  not  only  independent  of  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  scribes,  he  was  also  very  free  at  times  \vith 


228  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

the  letter  of  the  Old  Testament.  When  by  a  word 
he  "  made  all  meats  clean "  (Mark  vii.  19),  he  set 
himself  agamst  the  permanent  validity  of  the  Levitical 
ritual.  When  the  Pharisees  pleaded  Moses  for  their 
authority  in  the  matter  of  divorce,  Jesus  referred  them 
back  of  Moses  to  the  original  constitution  of  mankind 
(Matt.  xix.  3-9).  His  general  attitude  to  the  Sabbath 
was  not  only  opposed  to  the  traditions  of  the  scribes, 
it  also  disregarded  the  Old  Testament  conception  of 
the  Sabbath  as  an  institution.  Yet  Jesus  took  pains 
to  declare  that  he  came  not  to  set  aside  the  old  but  to 
fulfil  it  (Matt.  V.  17).  The  contrasts  which  he  draws 
between  things  said  to  them  of  old  and  his  new  teach- 
ings (Matt.  V.  21-48)  look  at  first  much  like  a  doing 
away  of  the  old.  Jesus  did  not  so  conceive  them. 
He  rather  thought  of  them  as  fresh  statements  of  the 
idea  which  underlay  the  old ;  they  fulfilled  the  old  by 
realizing  more  fully  that  which  it  had  set  before  an 
earlier  generation.  He  was  the  most  radical  teacher 
the  men  of  his  day  could  conceive,  but  his  work  was 
clearing  rubbish  away  from  the  roots  of  venerable 
truth  tliat  it  might  bear  fruit,  rather  than  rooting  up 
the  old  to  put  something  else  in  its  place. 

233.  The  Old  Testament  was  for  Jesus  a  holy 
book.  His  mind  was  filled  with  its  stories  and  its 
language.  In  the  teachings  which  have  been  pre- 
served for  us  he  has  made  use  of  writings  from  all 
parts  of  the  Jewish  scriptures.  —  Law,  Prophets, 
and  Psalms.  The  Old  Testament  furnished  him  the 
weapons  for  his  own  soul's  struggle  with  temptation 
(Matt.  iv.  4,  7,  10),  it  gave  him  arguments  for  use 
against  his  opponents  (Mark  xii.  24-27 ;  ii.  25-27), 
and  it  was   for   him   an   inexhaustible  storehouse  of 


HIS  TEACHING  POPULAR  AND  PRACTICAL       229 

illustration  in  his  teaching.  When  inquirers  sought 
the  way  of  life  he  pointed  them  to  the  scriptures 
(Mark  x.  19;  see  also  John  v.  39),  and  declared  that 
the  rising  of  one  from  the  dead  would  not  avail  for  the 
warning  of  those  who  were  unmoved  by  Moses  and 
the  prophets  (Luke  xvi.  31).  When  Jesus'  personal 
attitude  to  the  Old  Testament  is  considered  it  is  notice- 
able that  while  his  quotations  and  allusions  cover  a 
wide  range,  and  show  very  general  familiarity  with 
the  whole  book,  there  appears  a  decided  predominance 
of  Deuteronomy,  the  last  part  of  Isaiah,  and  the 
Psalms.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  these  books  are 
closer  in  spirit  to  his  own  thought  than  much  else 
in  the  old  writings ;  his  use  of  the  scripture  shows  that 
some  parts  appealed  to  liim  more  than  others. 

234.  Jesus  as  a  teacher  was  popular  and  practical 
rather  than  systematic  and  theoretical.  The  freshness 
of  his  ideas  is  proof  that  he  was  not  lacking  in  thorough 
and  orderly  thinking,  for  his  complete  departure  from 
current  conceptions  of  the  kingdom  of  God  indicates 
perfect  mastery  of  ethical  and  theological  truth.  It  is 
all  the  more  remarkable,  therefore,  that  so  much  of  his 
profoundest  teaching  seems  to  have  been  almost  acci- 
dental. The  most  formal  discourse  preserved  to  us  is 
the  sermon  on  the  mount,  in  which  human  conduct  is 
regulated  by  the  thought  of  God  as  Father  and  Searcher 
of  hearts.  For  the  rest  the  great  ideas  of  Jesus  have 
utterance  in  response  to  specific  conditions  presented 
to  him  in  his  ministry.  His  most  radical  sayings  con- 
cerning the  Sabbath  followed  a  criticism  of  his  disciples 
for  plucking  ears  of  grain  as  they  passed  through  the 
fields  on  the  Sabbath  day  (Mark  ii.  23-28) ;  his  au- 
thority to  forgive  sins  was  announced  when  a  paralytic 


230  THE  LIFE   OE  JESUS 

was  brought  to  him  for  healing  (Mark  ii.  1-12) ;  so  far 
as  the  gospels  indicate,  we  should  have  missed  Jesus' 
clearest  statement  of  the  significance  of  his  own  death 
but  for  the  ambitious  request  of  James  and  John  (Mark 
X.  35-45).  Examples  of  the  occasional  character  of 
his  teaching  might  be  greatly  multiplied.  He  did  not 
seek  to  be  the  founder  of  a  school ;  important  as  his 
teachings  were,  they  take  a  place  in  his  work  second 
to  his  personal  influence  on  his  followers.  He  desired 
to  win  disciples  whose  faith  in  him  would  withstand 
all  shocks,  rather  than  to  train  experts  who  would  pass 
on  his  ideas  to  others.  His  disciples  did  become  ex- 
perts, for  we  owe  to  them  the  vivid  presentation  we 
have  of  the  exalted  and  unique  teaching  of  their  Mas- 
ter ;  but  they  were  thus  skilful  because  they  surren- 
dered themselves  to  his  personal  mastery,  and  learned 
to  know  the  springs  of  his  own  life  and  thought. 

235.  Nothing  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  more  re- 
markable than  liis  confidence  that  men  who  believed 
in  him  would  adequately  represent  him  and  his  message 
to  the  world.  The  parable  of  the  Leaven  seems  to 
have  set  forth  his  own  method.  We  owe  our  gospels 
to  no  injunction  given  by  him  to  write  down  what  he 
said  and  did.  He  impressed  himself  on  his  followers, 
filled  them  with  a  love  to  himself  which  made  them 
sensitive  to  his  ideas  as  a  photographic  plate  is  to  light, 
teaching  them  his  truth  in  forms  that  did  not  at  first 
show  any  effect  on  their  thought,  but  were  developed 
into  strength  and  clearness  by  the  experiences  of  the 
passing  years.  Christian  ethics  and  theology  are  far 
more  than  an  orderly  presentation  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus ;  in  so  far  as  they  are  purely  Christian  they 
are   the   systematic   setting  forth   of   truth   involved. 


HIS  USE   OF  ILLUSTRATION  231 

tliougli  not  expressed,  in  what  he  said  and  did  in  his 
ministry  among  men.  His  ideas  were  radical  and 
thorouglily  revolutionary.  His  method,  however,  had 
in  it  all  the  patience  of  God's  working  in  nature,  and 
the  hidden  noiseless  power  of  an  evolution  is  its  char- 
acteristic. Hence  it  was  that  he  chose  to  teach  some 
things  exclusively  in  figure.  So  great  and  unfamiliar 
a  truth  as  the  gradual  development  of  God's  kingdom 
was  unwelcome  to  the  thought  of  his  time.  He  made 
it,  therefore,  the  theme  of  many  of  liis  parables ;  and 
although  the  disciples  did  not  understand  what  he 
meant,  the  picture  remained  mth  them,  and  in  after 
years  they  grew  up  to  his  idea. 

236.  Jesus'  use  of  illustration  is  one  of  the  most 
marked  features  of  his  teaching.  In  one  sense  this 
simply  proves  him  to  be  a  genuine  Oriental,  for  to  con- 
template and  present  abstract  truths  in  concrete  form 
is  characteristic  of  the  Semitic  mind.  In  the  case  of 
Jesus,  however,  it  proves  more :  the  variety  and  home- 
liness of  liis  illustrations  show  how  completely  conver- 
sant he  was  alike  with  common  life  and  with  spiritual 
truth.  There  is  a  freedom  and  ease  about  his  use  of 
figurative  language  which  suggests,  as  nothing  else 
could,  his  own  clear  certainty  concerning  the  things  of 
which  he  spoke.  The  fact,  too,  that  his  mind  dealt  so 
naturally  with  the  highest  thoughts  has  made  his  illus- 
trations unique  for  profound  truth  and  simple  beauty. 
Nearly  the  whole  range  of  figurative  speech  is  repre- 
sented in  his  recorded  words,  including  forms  like  irony 
and  hyperbole,  often  held  to  be  unnatural  to  such  seri- 
ous speech  as  his. 

237.  Another  figure  has  become  almost  identified 
with  the  name  of  Jesus,  —  such  abundant  and  incom- 


232  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

parable  use  did  he  make  of  it.  Parable  was,  however, 
no  invention  of  his,  for  the  rabbis  of  his  own  and  later 
times,  as  well  as  the  sages  and  prophets  who  went  be- 
fore them,  made  use  of  it.  As  distinguished  from  other 
forms  of  illustration,  the  parable  is  a  picture  true  to 
actual  human  life,  used  to  enforce  a  religious  truth. 
The  picture  may  be  di-aAvn  in  detail,  as  in  the  story  of 
the  Lost  Son  (Luke  xv.  11-32),  or  it  may  be  the  con- 
cisest  narration  possible,  as  in  the  parable  of  the  Leaven 
(Matt.  xiii.  83)  ;  but  it  always  retains  its  character  as 
a  narrative  true  to  human  experience.  It  is  this  that 
gives  parable  the  peculiar  value  it  has  for  religious 
teaching,  since  it  brings  unfamiliar  truth  close  home 
to  every-day  life.  Like  all  the  illustrations  used 
by  Jesus,  the  parable  Avas  ordinarily  chosen  as  n 
means  of  making  clear  the  spiritual  truth  which  he 
was  presenting.  Illustration  never  finds  place  as  mere 
ornament  in  his  addresses.  His  parables,  however, 
were  sometimes  used  to  baffle  the  unteachable  and 
critical.  Such  was  the  case  on  the  occasion  in  Jesus' 
life  when  attention  is  first  called  in  the  gospels  to  this 
mode  of  teaching  (Mark  iv.  1-34).  The  parable  of 
the  Sower  would  mean  little  to  hearers  who  held  the 
crude  and  material  ideas  of  the  kingdom  which  pre- 
vailed among  Jesus'  contemporaries.  It  was  used  as 
an  invitation  to  consider  a  great  truth,  and  for  teach- 
able disciples  was  full  of  suggestion  and  meaning; 
while  for  the  critical  curiosity  of  unfriendly  hearers 
it  was  only  a  pointless  story,  —  a  means  adopted  by 
Jesus  to  save  his  pearls  from  being  trampled  under 
foot,  and  perhaps  also  to  prevent  too  early  a  decision 
against  him  on  the  part  of  his  opponents. 

238.   In  nothing  is  Jesus'  ease  in  handling  deepest 


IRONY  AND   HYPERBOLE  233 

truth  more  apparent  than  in  his  use  of  irony  and  hy- 
perbole in  his  illustrations.  In  his  reference  to  the 
Pharisees  as  "  ninety  and  nine  just  persons  which  need 
no  repentance"  (Luke  xv.  7),  and  in  liis  question, 
"  Many  good  works  have  I  shewed  you  from  the  Father, 
for  which  of  these  works  do  you  stone  me  ?  "  (John  x. 
32),  the  irony  is  plain,  but  not  any  plainer  than  the 
rhetorical  exaggeration  of  his  accusation  against  the 
scribes,  "  You  strain  out  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camel " 
(Matt,  xxiii.  24),  or  his  declaration  that  ''it  is  easier 
for  a  camel  to  go  through  a  needle's  eye  than  for  a 
rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (Mark 
x.  25),  or  his  charge,  "  If  a  man  cometh  unto  me 
and  hateth  not  his  own  father  and  mother  ...  he 
cannot  be  my  disciple "  (Luke  xiv.  26).  The  force 
of  these  statements  is  in  their  hyperbole.  Only  to  an 
interpretation  which  regards  the  letter  above  the  spirit 
can  they  cause  difficulty.  In  so  far  as  they  remove 
Jesus  utterly  from  the  j^edantic  carefulness  for  words 
which  marked  the  scribes  they  are  among  the  rare 
treasures  of  his  teachings.  The  simple  spirit  will  not 
busy  itself  about  finding  something  that  may  be  called 
a  needle's  eye  through  which  a  camel  can  pass  by 
squeezing,  nor  will  it  seek  a  camel  which  could  con- 
ceivably be  swallowed,  nor  will  it  stumble  at  a  seem- 
ing command  to  hate  those  for  whom  God's  law,  as 
emphasized  indeed  by  Jesiis  (Mark  vii.  6-13),  demands 
peculiar  love  and  honor.  The  cliildlike  spirit  which  is 
heir  of  God's  kingdom  readily  understands  this  warn- 
ing against  the  snare  of  riches,  this  rebuke  of  the 
hypocritical  life,  and  this  demand  for  a  love  for  the 
Master  which  shall  take  the  first  place  in  the  heart. 
239.   Jesus  sometimes  used  object  lessons  as  well  as 


234  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

illustrations,  and  for  the  same  purpose, — to  make  his 
thought  transparently  clear  to  his  hearers.  The  de- 
mand for  a  childlike  faith  in  order  to  enter  the  king- 
dom of  God  was  enforced  by  the  presence  of  a  little 
child  whom  Jesus  set  in  the  midst  of  the  circle  to 
whom  he  was  talking  (Mark  ix.  35-37).  The  un- 
worthy ambitions  of  the  disciples  were  rebuked  by 
Jesus'  taking  himself  the  menial  place  and  washing 
their  feet  (Jolni  xiii.  1-15). 

240.  The  simplicity  and  homeliness  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing are  not  more  remarkable  than  the  alertness  of  mind 
which  he  showed  on  all  occasions.  The  comment  of 
the  fourth  gospel,  "  he  needed  not  that  any  one  should 
bear  witness  concerning  man,  for  he  himself  knew 
what  was  in  man"  (ii.  25),  doubtless  refers  to  his 
supernatural  insight,  but  it  also  tells  of  his  quick  per- 
ception of  what  was  involved  in  each  situation  in 
which  he  found  himself.  Whether  it  was  Nicodemus 
coming  to  him  by  night,  or  the  lawyer  asking,  "  Who 
is  my  neighbor  ?"  or  a  dissatisfied  heir  demanding  that 
his  brother  divide  the  inheritance  with  him,  or  a  group 
of  Pharisees  seeking  to  undermine  his  power  by  at- 
tributing his  cures  to  the  devil,  or  trying  to  entrap  him 
by  a  question  about  tribute,  Jesus  was  never  caught 
unawares.  His  absorption  in  heavenly  truth  was  not 
accompanied  by  any  blindness  to  earthly  facts.  He 
knew  what  the  men  of  his  day  were  thinking  about, 
what  they  hoped  for,  to  what  follies  they  gave  their 
hearts,  and  what  sins  hid  God  from  them.  He  was 
eminentl}'  a  man  of  the  people,  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  all  that  interested  his  fellows,  and  in  the  most 
natural,  human  way.  Whatever  of  the  supernatural 
there  was  in  his  knowledge  did  not  make  it  unnatural. 


HIS  INTELLECTUAL  ALERTNESS  235 

As  he  was  socially  at  ease  with  the  best  and  most  cul- 
tivated of  his  day,  so  he  was  intellectually  the  master 
of  every  situation.  This  appears  nowhere  more  strik- 
ingly than  in  his  dealing  with  his  pharisaic  critics. 
When  they  were  shocked  by  his  forgiveness  of  sins,  or 
offended  by  his  indifference  to  the  Sabbath  tradition, 
or  goaded  into  blasphemy  by  his  growing  influence 
over  the  people,  or  troubled  by  his  disciples'  disregard 
of  the  traditional  washings,  or  when  later  they  con- 
spired to  entrap  him  in  his  speech,  —  from  first  to  last 
he  was  so  manifestly  superior  to  his  opponents  that 
they  withdrew  discomfited,  until  at  length  they  in 
madness  killed,  without  reason,  him  against  whom  they 
could  find  no  adequate  charge.  His  lack  of  "learn- 
ing" (John  vii.  15)  was  simply  his  innocence  of  rab- 
binic training;  he  had  no  diploma  from  their  schools. 
In  keenness  of  argument,  however,  and  invincibleness 
of  reasoning,  as  well  as  in  the  clearness  of  his  insight, 
he  was  ever  their  unapproachable  superior.  His  reply 
to  the  charge  of  league  with  Beelzebub  is  as  merciless 
an  exposure  of  feeble  malice  as  can  be  found  in  human 
literature.  He  was  as  worthy  to  be  Master  of  his  dis- 
ciples' thinking  as  he  was  to  be  Lord  of  their  hearts. 

241.  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  two  topics  have  the 
leading  place,  —  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  Himself. 
His  thought  about  himself  calls  for  separate  consider- 
ation, but  it  may  be  remarked  here  that  as  his  ministry 
progressed  he  spoke  with  increasing  frankness  about 
his  own  claims.  It  became  more  and  more  apparent 
that  he  sought  to  be  Lord  rather  than  Teacher  simply, 
and  to  impress  men  with  himself  rather  than  with  his 
ideas.  Yet  his  ideas  were  constantly  urged  on  his 
disciples,  and  they  were  summed  up  in  his  conception 


236  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

of  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
This  was  the  topic,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  far  the 
greater  part  of  his  teaching.  The  phrase  was  as  familiar 
to  his  contemporaries  as  it  is  common  in  his  words ; 
but  his  understanding  of  it  was  radically  different  from 
theirs.  He  and  they  took  it  to  mean  the  realization  on 
earth  of  heavenly  conditions  (kingdom  of  heaven),  or 
of  God's  actual  sovereignty  over  the  world  (kingdom  of 
God)  ;  but  of  the  God  whose  will  was  thus  to  be  real- 
ized they  conceived  quite  differently.  Strictly  speaking 
there  is  nothing  novel  in  the  idea  of  God  as  Father 
which  abounds  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  never 
offers  it  as  novel,  but  takes  it  for  granted  that  his 
hearers  are  familiar  with  the  name.  It  appears  in  some 
earlier  writers  both  in  and  out  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Yet  no  one  of  them  uses  it  as  constantly,  as  naturally, 
and  as  confidently  as  did  Jesus.  With  him  it  was 
the  simple  equivalent  of  his  idea  of  God,  and  it  was 
central  for  his  personal  religious  life  as  well  as  for  his 
teaching.  "  My  Father  "  always  lies  back  of  references 
in  his  teaching  to  "  your  Father."  This  is  the  key  to 
what  is  novel  in  Jesus'  idea  of  the  king^dom  of  God. 
His  contemporaries  thought  of  God  as  the  covenant 
king  of  Israel  who  would  in  his  own  time  make  good 
his  promises,  rid  his  people  of  their  foes,  set  them  on 
high  among  the  nations,  establish  his  law  in  their 
hearts,  and  rule  over  them  as  their  king.  The  whole 
conception,  while  in  a  real  sense  religious,  was  con- 
cerned more  with  the  nation  than  Avith  individuals,  and 
looked  rather  for  temporal  blessings  than  for  spiritual 
good.  With  Jesus  the  kingdom  is  the  realization  of 
God's  fatherly  sway  over  the  hearts  of  his  children.  It 
begins  when  men  come  to  own  God  as  their  Father,  and 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  237 

seek  to  do  his  will  for  the  love  they  bear  him.  It 
shows  development  towards  its  full  manifestation  when 
men  as  cliildren  of  God  look  on  each  other  as  brothers, 
and  govern  conduct  by  love  which  will  no  more  limit 
itself  to  friends  than  God  shuts  off  his  sunlight  from 
sinners.  From  this  love  to  God  and  men  it  will  grow 
into  a  new  order  of  things  in  which  God's  will  shall 
be  done  as  it  is  in  heaven,  even  as  from  the  little 
leaven  the  whole  lump  is  leavened.  Jesus  did  not 
set  aside  the  idea  of  a  judgment,  but  while  his  fel- 
lows commonly  made  it  the  inauguration,  he  made 
it  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom ;  they  thought  of 
it  as  the  day  of  confusion  for  apostates  and  Gentiles, 
he  taught  that  it  would  be  the  day  of  condemnation 
of  all  unbrotherliness  (Matt.  xxv.  31-46).  This  cen- 
tral idea — a  new  order  of  life  in  which  men  have  come 
to  love  and  obey  God  as  their  Father,  and  to  love  and 
live  for  men  as  their  brothers  —  attaches  to  itself  natu- 
rally all  the  various  phases  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
including  his  emphasis  on  himself ;  for  he  made  that 
emphasis  in  order  that,  as  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the 
Life,  he  might  lead  men  unto  the  Father. 


Ill 


242.  The  note  of  authority  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
is  evidence  of  his  own  clear  knowledge  of  the  things  of 
which  he  spoke.  As  if  by  swift  intuition,  his  mind 
penetrated  to  the  heart  of  things.  In  the  scriptures  he 
saw  the  underlying  truth  which  should  stand  till  heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  (Matt.  v.  18) ;  in  the  ceremonies 
of  his  people's  religion  he  saw  so  clearly  the  spiritual 
significance  that  he  did  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice  the 
passing  form  (Mark  vii.  14-23) ;  such  a  theological 
development  as  the  pharisaic  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection he  unhesitatingly  adopted  because  he  saw  that 
it  was  based  on  the  ultimate  significance  of  the  soul's 
fellowship  with  God  (Mark  xiii.  24-27)  ;  he  reduced 
religion  and  ethics  to  simplicity  by  summing  up  all 
commandments  in  one,  —  Thou  shalt  love  (Ma.tt.  xxii. 
37-40)  ;  and  at  the  same  time  insisted  as  no  other 
prophet  had  done  on  the  finality  of  conduct  and  the 
necessity  of  obedience  (Matt.  vii.  21-27).  His  pene- 
tration to  the  heart  of  an  idea  was  nowhere  more  clear 
than  in  his  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  realized 
in  the  filial  soul,  and  as  involving  a  judgment  which 
should  take  cognizance  only  of  brotherliness  of  con- 
duct. It  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  all  these 
different  aspects  of  his  teaching  grew  naturally  out  of 


HIS  SUPERNATURAL  KNOWLEDGE  239 

liis  knowledge  of  God  as  his  Father  and  the  Father  of 
all  men  ;  they  were  the  fruit,  therefore,  of  personal 
certainty  of  ultimate  and  all- dominating  truth. 

243.  If  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  had  been  shown 
only  in  matters  of  spiritual  truth,  it  would  still  have 
marked  him  as  one  apart  from  ordinary  men.  There 
were  other  directions,  however,  in  which  he  surpassed 
the  common  mind.  The  fourth  gospel  declares  that 
"  he  knew  what  was  in  man  "  (ii.  25),  and  all  the  evan- 
gelists give  evidence  of  such  knowledge.  Not  only 
the  designation  of  Judas  as  the  traitor,  and  of  Peter  as 
the  one  who  should  deny  him,  before  their  weakness 
and  sin  had  shown  themselves,  but  also  Jesus'  quick 
reading  of  the  heart  of  the  paralytic  who  was  brought 
to  him  for  healing,  and  of  the  woman  who  washed  his 
feet  with  her  tears  (Mark  ii.  5 ;  Luke  vii.  47),  and  his 
knowledge  of  the  character  of  Simon  and  Nathanael 
(John  i.  42,  47,)  as  well  as  his  sure  perception  of  the 
intent  of  the  various  questioners  whom  he  met,  indi- 
cate that  he  had  powers  of  insight  unshared  by  his 
fellow  men. 

244.  Furthermore,  the  gospels  state  explicitly  that 
Jesus  predicted  his  own  death  from  a  time  at  least  six 
months  before  the  end  (Matt.  xvi.  21),  and  they  in- 
dicate that  the  idea  was  not  new  to  him  when  he  first 
communicated  it  to  his  disciples  (Matt.  xvi.  23 ;  Mark 
ii.  20).  He  viewed  his  approaching  death,  moreover, 
as  a  necessity  (Mark  viii.  31-33),  yet  he  was  no  fatalist 
concerning  it.  He  could  still  in  Gethsemane  plead 
with  his  Father,  to  whom  all  things  are  possible,  to 
open  to  him  some  other  way  of  accomplishing  his 
work  (Mark  xiv.  36).  The  old  Testament  picture  of 
the  suffering  and  dying  servant  of  Jehovah  (Isa.  liii.) 


240  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

was  doubtless  familiar  to  Jesus.  Although  it  was  not 
interpreted  Messianically  by  the  scribes,  Jesus  prob- 
ably applied  it  to  himself  when  thinking  of  his  death ; 
yet  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  always  provided 
for  a  non-fulfilment  in  case  Israel  should  turn  unto 
the  Lord  in  truth  (see  Ezek.  xxxiii.  10-20).  More- 
over, the  contradiction  which  Jesus  felt  between  his 
ideas  and  those  cherished  by  the  leaders  of  his  people, 
whether  priests  or  scribes,  was  so  radical  that  his 
death  might  well  seem  inevitable;  yet  it  was  possi- 
ble that  his  people  might  repent,  and  Jerusalem  con- 
sent to  accept  him  as  God's  anointed.  Neither 
prophecy,  nor  the  actual  conditions  of  his  life,  there- 
fore, would  give  Jesus  any  fatalistic  certainty  of  his 
coming  death.  In  Gethsemane  his  heart  pleaded 
against  it,  while  his  will  bowed  still  to  God  in  perfect 
loyalty.  It  is  not  for  us  to  explain  his  prediction  of 
death  by  appealing  to  the  connection  which  the  apos- 
tolic thought  established  between  the  death  of  Christ 
and  the  salvation  of  men,  for  we  are  not  competent  to 
say  that  God  could  not  have  effected  redemption  in 
some  other  way  if  the  repentance  of  the  Jews  had, 
humanly  spealdng,  removed  from  Jesus  the  necessity 
of  death.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  he  knew  the 
prophetic  picture,  knew  also  the  hardness  of  heart 
which  had  taken  possession  of  the  Jews,  and  knew 
that  he  must  not  swerve  from  his  course  of  obedience 
to  what  he  saw  to  be  God's  will  for  him.  Since  that 
obedience  brought  him  into  fatal  opposition  to  human 
prejudice  and  passion,  he  saw  that  he  must  die,  and 
that  such  a  death  was  one  of  the  steps  in  his  estab- 
lishment of  God's  kingdom  among  men.  So  he  went 
on  his  way  ready  "  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to 


HIS  PREDICTIONS  OF  HIS  RESURRECTION       241 

minister,  and  to  give   his   life  a  ransom   for   many " 
(Mark  X.  45). 

245.  With  his  prediction  of  his  death  the  gospels 
usually  associate  a  prophecy  of  his  speedy  resurrec- 
tion. As  has  been  already  remarked  (sect.  210),  it 
is  being  generally  recognized  that  if  Jesus  believed 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  he  must  have  associated  with 
the  thought  of  death  that  of  victory  over  death,  which 
for  all  Jewish  minds  meant  a  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  Jesus  certainly  taught  that  his  death  was  part 
of  his  Messianic  work,  it  could  not  therefore  be  his 
end.  The  prediction  of  the  resurrection  is  the  neces- 
sary coroUar}^  of  his  expectation  of  death ;  and  it  may 
reverently  be  believed  that  his  knowledge  of  it  was 
intimately  involved  with  his  certainty  that  it  was  as 
Messiah  that  he  was  to  die. 

246.  From  the  time  when  he  began  to  tell  his  dis- 
ciples that  he  must  die,  Jesus  began  also  to  teach  that 
Ills  earthly  ministry  was  not  to  finish  his  work,  but 
that  he  should  return  in  glory  from  heaven  to  realize 
fully  all  that  was  involved  in  the  idea  of  God's  king- 
dom. His  predictions  resemble  in  form  the  repre- 
sentations found  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  the  Book 
of  Enoch ;  and  the  understanding  of  them  is  involved 
in  difficulties  like  those  which  beset  such  apocalyptic 
writings.  In  general,  apocalypses  were  written  in 
times  of  great  distress  for  God's  people,  and  repre- 
sented the  deliverance  which  should  usher  in  God's 
kingdom  as  near  at  hand.  One  feature  of  them  is  a 
complete  lack  of  perspectiA^e  in  the  picture  of  the 
future.  It  may  be  that  this  fact  will  in  part  account 
for  one  great  perplexity  in  the  apocalyptic  sayings  of 
Jesus.     In  the  chief  of  these  (Mark  xiii.  and  parallels), 

16 


242  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

predictions  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  are  so 
mingled  with  promises  of  his  own  second  coming  and 
the  end  of  all  things  that  many  have  sought  to  resolve 
the  difficulty  by  separating  the  discourse  into  two  differ- 
ent ones,  —  one  a  short  Jewish  apocalypse  predicting 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  within  the  life  of  that  generation;  the 
other,  Jesus'  own  prediction  of  the  end  of  all  things, 
concerning  which  he  warns  his  disciples  that  they  be 
not  deceived,  but  watch  diligently  and  patiently  for 
God's  full  salvation.  The  difficulties  of  this  discourse 
as  it  stands  are  so  great  that  any  solution  which  ac- 
counts for  all  the  facts  must  be  welcomed.  So  far  as 
this  analysis  seeks  to  remove  from  the  account  of 
Jesus'  own  words  the  references  to  a  fulfilment  of  the 
predictions  within  the  life  of  that  generation,  it  is 
confronted  by  other  sayings  of  Jesus  (Mark  ix.  1)  and 
by  the  problem  of  the  uniform  belief  of  the  apostolic 
age  that  he  would  speedily  return.  That  belief  must 
have  had  some  ground.  What  more  natural  than  that 
words  of  Jesus,  rightly  or  wrongly  understood,  led  to 
the  common  Christian  expectation?  Some  such  anal- 
ysis may  yet  establish  itself  as  the  true  solution  of  the 
difficulties ;  it  may  be,  however,  that  in  adopting  the 
apocalyptic  form  of  discourse,  Jesus  also  adopted  its 
lack  of  perspective,  and  spoke  coincidently  of  future 
events  in  the  progress  of  the  kingdom,  which,  in  their 
complete  realization  at  least,  were  widely  separated  in 
time.  In  such  a  case  it  would  not  be  strange  if  the 
disciples  looked  for  the  fulfilment  of  all  of  the  predic- 
tions within  the  limit  assigned  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  some  of  them. 

247.   Whatever  the  explanation  of  these  difficulties, 


THE  LIMITATION  OF  HIS  KNOWLEDGE  243 

the  gospels  clearly  represent  Jesiis  as  predicting  his 
own  return  in  glory  to  establish  his  kingdom,  —  a  crown- 
ing evidence  of  his  claim  to  supernatural  knowledge. 
It  is  all  the  more  significant,  therefore,  that  it  is  in  con- 
nection with  his  prediction  of  his  future  coming  that  he 
made  the  most  definite  declaration  of  his  own  ignorance : 
"  Of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even 
the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  " 
(Mark  xiii.  32).  This  confession  of  the  limitation  of  his 
knowledge  is  conclusive.  Yet  it  is  not  isolated.  With 
his  undoubted  power  to  read  "  what  was  in  man,"  he 
was  not  independent  of  ordinary  ways  of  learning  facts. 
When  the  woman  was  healed  who  touched  the  hem 
of  his  garment,  Jesus  knew  that  his  power  had  been 
exercised,  but  he  discovered  the  object  of  his  healing 
by  asking,  "  Who  touched  me  ?  "  and  calling  the  woman 
out  from  the  crowd  to  acknowledge  her  blessing  (Mark 
V.  30-34) ;  when  the  centurion  urged  Jesus  to  heal  Ins 
boy  without  taking  the  trouble  to  come  to  his  house, 
Jesus  "  marvelled  "  at  his  faith  (Matt.  viii.  10) ;  when 
he  came  to  Bethany,  assured  of  his  Father's  answer 
to  his  prayer  for  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  he  asked  as 
simply  as  any  other  one  in  the  company,  "  Where  have 
ye  laid  him?"  (John  xi.  34).  It  should  not  be  for- 
gotten that  his  knowledge  of  approaching  death,  resur- 
rection, and  return  in  glory  did  not  prevent  the  earnest 
pleading  in  Gethsemane,  and  it  may  be  that  his  reply 
to  the  ambition  of  James  and  John,  it  "  is  not  mine  to 
give "  (Mark  x.  40),  is  a  confession  of  ignorance  as 
well  as  subordination  to  his  Father. 

248.  The  supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus,  so  far 
as  its  exercise  is  apparent  in  the  gospels,  was  con- 
cerned with  the  truths  intimately  related  to  his  reli- 


244  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

gious  teaching  or  his  Messianic  work.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  it  occupied  itself  at  all  with  facts  of 
nature  or  of  history  discovered  by  others  at  a  later 
day.  When  he  says  of  God  that  "  he  maketh  his  sun 
to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good  "  (Matt.  v.  45),  there 
is  no  evidence  that  he  thought  of  the  earth  and  its  re- 
lation to  the  sun  differently  from  his  contemporaries ; 
it  is  probable  that  his  thought  anticipated  Galileo's  dis- 
covery no  more  than  do  his  words.  Much  the  same 
may  be  said  with  reference  to  the  purely  literary  or 
historical  questions  of  Old  Testament  criticism,  now 
so  much  discussed.  If  it  is  proved  by  just  inter- 
pretation of  all  the  facts  that  the  Pentateuch  is  only 
in  an  ideal  sense  to  be  attributed  to  Moses,  and  that 
many  of  the  psalms  inscribed  with  his  name  cannot 
have  been  written  by  David,  the  propriety  of  Jesus' 
references  to  what  "  Moses  said "  (Mark  vii.  10),  and 
the  validity  of  his  argument  for  the  relative  unimpor- 
tance of  the  Davidic  descent  of  the  Messiah,  will  not 
suffer.  Had  Jesus  had  in  mind  the  ultimate  facts 
concerning  the  literary  structure  of  the  Pentateuch, 
he  could  not  have  hoped  to  hold  the  attention  of  his 
hearers  upon  the  religious  teaching  he  was  seeking  to 
enforce,  unless  he  referred  to  the  early  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  written  by  Moses.  Jesus  did  re- 
peatedly go  back  of  Moses  to  more  primitive  origins 
(Mark  x.  5,  6 ;  John  vii.  22) ;  yet  there  is  no  likeli- 
hood that  the  literary  question  was  ever  present  in  his 
thinking.  This  phase  of  his  intellectual  life,  like  that 
which  concerned  his  knowledge  of  the  natural  uni- 
verse, was  in  all  probability  one  of  the  points  in  wliich 
he  was  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  sharing,  as  matter 
of  course,  their  views  on  questions  that  were  indif- 


HIS  TREATMENT  OF  DEMONIACS  245 

ferent  for  the  spiritual  mission  he  came  to  fulfil.  If 
this  was  the  case,  his  argument  from  the  one  hundi^ed 
and  tenth  Psalm  (Mark  xii.  35-37)  would  simply  give 
evidence  that  he  accepted  the  views  of  his  time  con- 
cerning the  Psalm,  and  j)roceeded  to  use  it  to  correct 
other  views  of  his  time  concerning  what  was  of  most 
importance  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah.  The  last 
of  these  was  of  vital  importance  for  his  teaching ;  the 
first  was  for  this  teaching  quite  as  indifferent  a  matter 
as  the  relations  of  the  earth  and  the  sun  in  the  solar 
system. 

249.  A  more  perplexing  difficulty  arises  from  his 
handling  of  the  cases  of  so-called  demoniac  possession. 
He  certainly  treated  these  invalids  as  if  they  were 
actually  under  the  control  of  demons :  he  rebuJ^ed, 
banished,  gave  commands  to  the  demons,  and  in  this 
way  wrought  his  cures  upon  the  possessed.  It  has 
already  been  remarked  that  the  symptoms  shown 
in  the  cases  cured  by  Jesus  can  be  duplicated  from 
cases  of  hysteria,  epilepsy,  or  insanity,  which  have 
come  under  modern  medical  examination.  Three 
questions  then  arise  concerning  his  treatment  of  the 
possessed.  1.  Did  he  unquestioningly  share  the  in- 
terpretation which  his  contemporaries  put  upon  the 
symptoms,  and  simply  bring  relief  by  his  miracu- 
lous power?  2.  Did  he  know  that  those  whom  he 
healed  were  not  afflicted  by  evil  spirits,  and  ac- 
commodate himself  in  his  cures  to  their  notions? 
3.  Does  he  prove  by  his  treatment  that  the  unfortu- 
nates actually  were  being  tormented  by  diabolical 
agencies,  which  he  banished  by  his  word  ?  The  last  of 
these  possibilities  should  not  be  held  to  be  impossible 
until  much  more  is  known  than  we  now  know  about 


246  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

the  mysterious  phenomena  of  abnormal  psychical  states. 
If  this  is  the  explanation  of  the  maladies  for  Jesus' 
day,  however,  it  should  be  accepted  also  as  the  expla- 
nation of  similar  abnormal  symptoms  when  they  appear 
in  our  modern  life,  for  the  old  hypothesis  of  a  s^^ecial 
activity  of  evil  spirits  at  the  time  of  the  incarnation 
is  inadequate  to  account  for  the  fact  that  in  some 
quarters  similar  maladies  have  been  similarly  ex- 
plained from  the  earliest  times  until  the  present  day. 
If,  however,  he  knew  his  people  to  be  in  error  in 
ascribing  these  afflictions  to  diabolical  influence,  he 
need  have  felt  no  call  to  correct  it.  If  the  disease 
had  been  the  direct  effect  of  such  a  delusion,  Jesus 
Avould  have  encouraged  the  error  by  accommodating 
himself  to  the  popular  notion.  The  idea  of  possession, 
however,  was  only  an  attempt  to  explain  very  real 
distress.  Jesus  desired  to  cure,  not  to  inform  his 
patients.  The  notion  in  no  way  interfered  with  his 
turning  the  thought  of  those  he  healed  towards  God, 
the  centre  of  help  and  of  health.  He  is  not  open, 
therefore,  to  the  charge  of  having  failed  to  free  men 
from  the  thraldom  of  superstition  if  he  accommodated 
himself  to  their  belief  concerning  demoniac  posses- 
sion. His  cure,  and  his  infusion  of  true  thoughts  of 
God  into  the  heart,  furnished  an  antidote  to  supersti- 
tion more  efficacious  than  any  amount  of  discussion  of 
the  truth  or  falseness  of  the  current  explanation  of 
the  disease.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  are  not  ready 
to  conclude  that  the  action  of  Jesus  has  demonstrated 
the  validity  of  the  ancient  explanation,  we  may  ac- 
knowledge that  it  would  do  no  violence  to  his  power, 
or  dignity,  or  integrity,  if  it  should  be  held  that  he 
did  not  concern  himself  with  an  inquir}^  into  the  cause 


HIS  TREATMENT  OF  DEMONIACS  247 

of  the  disease  which  presented  itself  to  him  for  help, 
but  adopted  unquestioningly  the  explanation  held  by 
all  liis  contemporaries,  even  as  he  used  their  language, 
dress,  manner  of  life,  and  in  one  particular,  at  least, 
their  representation  of  the  life  after  death  (Luke  xvi. 
22  —  Abraham's  bosom).  His  own  confession  of  igno- 
rance of  a  large  item  of  religious  knowledge  (Mark 
xiii.  32)  leaves  open  the  possibility  that  in  so  minor  a 
matter  as  the  explanation  of  a  common  disease  he 
simply  shared  the  ideas  of  his  time.  In  this  case, 
when  one  so  afflicted  came  imder  his  treatment,  he 
applied  his  supernatural  power,  even  as  in  cases  of 
leprosy  or  fever,  and  cured  the  trouble,  needing  no 
scientific  knowledge  of  its  cause.  If  accommodation 
or  ignorance  led  Jesus  to  treat  these  sick  folk  as  pos- 
sessed, it  does  not  challenge  his  integrity  nor  his  trust- 
worthiness in  all  the  matters  which  belong  properly  to 
his  own  peculiar  work. 

250.  There  is  one  incident  in  the  gospels  which 
favors  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  definitely  adopted 
the  current  idea,  —  the  permission  granted  by  him  to 
the  demons  to  go  from  the  Gadarene  into  the  herd  of 
swine,  and  the  consequent  drowning  of  the  herd  (Mark 
V.  11-13).  On  any  theory  this  incident  is  full  of  diffi- 
culty. Bernhard  Weiss  (LXt  11.  226  ff.)  holds  that 
Jesus  accommodated  himself  to  current  views,  and 
that  the  man,  having  received  for  the  possessing 
demons  permission  to  go  into  the  swine,  was  at  once 
seized  by  a  final  paroxysm,  and  rushed  among  the 
swine,  stampeding  them  so  that  they  ran  down  the 
hillside  into  the  sea. 

251.  In  recent  years  the  view  has  been  somewhat 
widely  advocated  that  his  power  over  demoniacs  was 


248  THE   LITE   OF  JESUS 

to  Jesus  himself  one  of  the  chief  proofs  of  his  Messiah- 
ship.  His  words  are  quoted :  "  If  I,  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  cast  out  demons,  then  is  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  upon  you  "  (Matt.  xii.  28) ;  and  "  I  beheld  Satan 
falling  as  lightning  from  heaven  "  (Luke  x.  18).  The 
first  of  these  is  in  the  midst  of  an  ad  hominem  reply  of 
Jesus  to  the  charge  that  he  owed  his  power  to  a  league 
with  the  devil  (Matt.  xii.  28)  ;  and  the  second  was  his 
remark  when  the  seventy  reported  with  joy  that  the 
demons  were  subject  unto  them  (Luke  x.  18).  The 
gospels,  however,  trace  his  certainty  of  his  Messiahship 
to  quite  other  causes,  primarily  to  his  knowledge  of 
himself  as  God's  child,  then  to  the  Voice  which,  com- 
ing at  the  baptism,  summoned  him  as  God's  beloved 
Son  to  do  the  work  of  the  Messiah.  Throughout  his 
ministry  Jesus  exhibits  a  certainty  of  his  mission  quite 
independent  of  external  evidences,  —  "  Even  if  I  bear 
witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  true ;  for  I  know 
whence  I  came  and  whither  I  go  "  (John  viii.  14). 


IV 

JESTJS'   CONCEPTION  OF  HIMSELF 

252.  When  Jesus  called  forth  the  confession  of 
Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi  he  brought  into  prominence 
the  question  which  during  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
Galilean  ministry  he  had  studiously  kept  in  the  back- 
ground. This  is  no  indication,  however,  that  he  was 
late  in  reaching  a  conclusion  for  himself  concerning 
his  relation  to  the  kingdom  which  he  was  preaching. 
From  the  time  of  his  baptism  and  temptation  every 
manifestation  of  the  inner  facts  of  his  life  shows  un- 
hesitating confidence  in  the  reality  of  his  call  and  in 
his  understanding  of  his  mission.  This  is  the  case 
whether  the  fourth  gospel  or  the  first  three  be  appealed 
to  for  evidence.  It  is  generally  felt  that  the  Gospel  of 
John  presents  its  sharpest  contrast  to  the  synoptic 
gospels  in  respect  of  the  development  of  Jesus'  self- 
disclosures.  A  careful  consideration  of  the  first  three 
gospels,  however,  shows  that  the  difference  is  not  in 
Jesus'  thought  about  himself. 

253.  The  first  thing  which  impressed  the  people 
during  the  ministry  in  Galilee  was  Jesus'  assumption 
of  authority,  whether  in  teaching  or  in  action  (Mark 
i.  27;  Matt.  vii.  28,  29).  His  method  of  teaching 
distinguished  him  sharply  from  the  scribes,  vdio  were 
constantly  appealing  to  the  opinion  of  the  elders  to 
establish    the    validity   of    their   conclusions.     Jesus 


250  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

taught  with  a  simple  "I  say  unto  you."  In  this,  how- 
ever, he  differed  not  only  from  the  scribes,  but  also 
from  the  prophets,  to  whom  in  many  ways  he  bore  so 
strong  a  likeness.  They  proclaimed  their  messages 
with  the  sanction  of  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord; "  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  oppose  the  letter  of  scripture  as  well 
as  the  tradition  of  the  elders  with  his  unsupported 
word  (Matt.  v.  38,  39;  Mark  vii.  1-23).  His  teach- 
ing revealed  his  unhesitating  certainty  concerning 
spiritual  truth,  and  although  he  reverenced  deeply  the 
Jewish  scriptures,  and  knew  that  his  work  was  the  ful- 
filment of  their  promises,  he  used  them  always  as  one 
whose  superiority  to  God's  earlier  messengers  was  as 
complete  as  his  reverence  for  them.  He  was  con- 
fident that  what  they  suggested  of  truth  he  was  able 
to  declare  clearly ;  he  used  them  as  a  master  does  his 
tools. 

254.  More  striking  than  Jesus'  independence  in 
his  teaching  is  the  calmness  of  his  self-assertion  when 
he  was  opposed  by  pharisaic  criticism  and  hostility. 
He  preferred  to  teach  the  truth  of  the  kingdom,  work- 
ing his  cures  in  such  a  way  that  men  should  think 
about  God's  goodness  rather  than  their  healer's  signifi- 
cance. Yet  coincidently  with  this  method  of  his 
choice  he  did  not  hesitate  to  reply  to  pharisaic  opposi- 
tion with  unqualified  self-assertion  and  exalted  per- 
sonal claim.  Even  if  the  conflicts  which  Mark  has 
gathered  together  at  the  opening  of  his  gospel  (ii.  1 
to  iii.  6)  did  not  all  occur  as  early  as  he  has  placed 
them,  the  nucleus  of  the  group  belongs  to  the  early 
time.  Since  the  people  greatly  reverenced  his  critics, 
he  felt  it  unnecessary  to  guard  against  arousing  undue 
enthusiasm  by  this  frank  avowal  of  his  claims.     He 


HIS  EARLY  SELF-ASSERTIONS  251 

consequently  asserted  his  authority  to  forgive  sins,  his 
special  mission  to  the  sick  in  soul  whom  the  scribes 
shunned  as  defiling,  his  right  to  modify  the  conception 
of  Sabbath  observance;  even  as,  later,  he  warned  his 
critics  of  their  fearful  danger  if  they  ascribed  his  good 
deeds  to  diabolical  power  (Mark  iii.  28-30),  and  as, 
after  the  collapse  of  popularity,  he  rebuked  them  for 
making  void  the  word  of  God  by  their  tradition  (Mark 
vii.  13).  His  attitude  to  the  scribes  in  Galilee  from 
the  beginning  discloses  as  definite  Messianic  claims  as 
any  ascribed  by  the  fourth  gospel  to  this  early  period. 

255.  These  facts  of  the  independence  of  Jesus  in 
his  teaching  and  his  self-assertion  in  response  to  criti- 
cism confirm  the  impression  that  his  answer  to  John 
the  Baptist  (Matt.  xi.  2-6)  gives  the  key  to  his  method 
in  Galilee.  In  John's  inquiry  the  question  of  Jesus' 
personal  relation  to  the  kingdom  was  definitely  asked. 
The  answer,  "  Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  find  none 
occasion  of  stumbling  in  me,"  showed  plainly  that 
Jesus  was  in  no  doubt  in  the  matter,  although  for 
the  time  he  still  preferred  to  let  his  ministry  be  the 
means  of  leading  men  to  form  their  conclusions  con- 
cerning him.  What  he  brought  into  prominence  at 
Csesarea  Philippi,  therefore,  was  that  which  had  been 
the  familiar  subject  of  his  own  thinking  from  the  time 
of  his  baptism. 

256.  In  the  ministry  subsequent  to  the  confession 
of  Peter  the  self-disclosures  of  Jesus  became  more 
frequent  and  clear.  His  predictions  of  his  approach- 
ing death  were  at  the  time  the  greatest  difficulty  to 
his  disciples;  when  considered  in  their  significance 
for  his  own  life,  however,  they  prove  that  his  convic- 
tion of  his  Messiahship  was  as  independent  of  current 


252  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

and  inherited  ideas  as  was  his  teaching  concerning  the 
kingdom.  When  he  came  to  see  that  death  was 
the  inevitable  issue  of  his  work,  he  at  once  discovered 
in  it  a  divine  necessity;  it  does  not  seem  to  have 
shaken  in  the  least  his  certainty  that  he  was  the 
Messiah.  Associated  with  this  conception  of  his 
death  is  the  conviction  which  appears  in  all  the  later 
teachings,  that  in  rejecting  him  his  people  were  pro- 
nouncing their  own  doom.  Because  she  would  not 
accept  him  as  her  deliverer,  Jerusalem's  "house  was 
left  unto  her  desolate  "  (Luke  xiii.  35).  His  sense  of 
his  supreme  significance  appears  most  clearly  in  some 
of  the  later  parables,  such  as  The  Marriage  of  the 
King's  Son  (Matt.  xxii.  1-14)  and  The  Wicked  Hus- 
bandmen (Matt.  xxi.  33-44),  which  definitely  connect 
the  condemnation  of  the  chosen  people  with  their 
rejection  of  God's  Son.  Two  other  sayings  in  the  first 
three  gospels  express  the  personal  claim  of  Jesus  in 
the  most  exalted  form,  —  his  declaration  on  the  return 
of  the  seventy :  "  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto 
me  of  my  Father,  and  no  man  knoweth  who  the  Son 
is  save  the  Father,  and  who  the  Father  is  save  the 
Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal 
him"  (Luke  x.  22;  Matt.  xi.  27);  and  his  confession 
of  the  limits  of  his  own  knowledge:  "But  of  that 
day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels 
in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father"  (Mark 
xiii.  32).  The  confession  of  ignorance,  by  the  position 
given  to  the  Son  in  the  climax  which  denied  that  any 
save  the  Father  had  a  knowledge  of  the  time  of  the 
end,  is  quite  as  extraordinary  as  the  claim  to  sole 
qualification  to  reveal  the  Father. 

257.    The  similarity  of  these  last  two  sayings  to  the 


HIS  EARLY  SELF-ASSERTIONS  253 

discourses  in  the  fourth  gospel  has  often  been  re- 
marked; the  likeness  is  particularly  close  between 
them  and  the  claims  of  Jesus  recorded  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  John.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  the 
incident  which  introduces  the  discourse  in  that  chapter 
Jesus  shows  that  he  preferred,  after  healing  the  man 
at  the  pool,  to  avoid  the  attention  of  the  multitudes, 
precisely  as  in  Galilee  he  sought  to  check  too  great 
popular  excitement  by  withdrawing  from  Capernaum 
after  his  first  ministry  there  (Mark  i.  35-39),  and 
enjoining  silence  on  the  leper  who  had  been  healed  by 
him  (Mark  ii.  44).  When,  however,  he  found  himself 
opposed  by  the  criticism  of  the  Pharisees  he  spoke 
with  unhesitating  self-assertion  and  exalted  personal 
claim,  even  as  he  did  in  like  situations  in  Galilee. 
During  his  earlier  ministry  in  Judea  he  had  not  shown 
this  reserve.  The  cleansing  of  the  temple,  although 
it  was  no  more  than  any  prophet  sure  of  his  divine 
commission  would  have  done,  was  a  bold  challenge  to 
the  people  to  consider  who  he  was  who  ventured  thus 
to  criticise  the  priestly  administration  of  God's  house. 
In  his  subsequent  dealings  with  Nicodemus  and  the 
Samaritan  woman  Jesus  manifested  a  like  readiness  to 
draw  attention  to  himself.  From  the  time  of  the  feed- 
ing of  the  multitudes  all  four  of  the  gospels  represent 
him  as  asserting  his  claims,  with  this  difference,  how- 
ever, that  in  John  it  is  the  rule  rather  than  the  ex- 
ception to  find  sayings  similar  to  the  two  in  which  the 
self-assertion  in  the  other  gospels  reaches  its  highest 
expression.  Although  the  method  of  Jesus  varied  at 
different  times  and  in  different  localities,  yet  it  is  evi- 
dent that  he  stood  before  the  people  from  the  first 
with  the  consciousness  that  he  had  the  riecht  to  claim 


254  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

their  allegiance  as  no  one  of  the  prophets  who  pre- 
ceded him  would  have  been  bold  to  do. 

258.  During  the  course  of  his  ministry  Jesus  used 
of  himself,  or  suffered  others  to  use  with  reference  to 
him,  many  of  the  titles  by  which  his  people  were 
accustomed  to  refer  to  the  Messiah.  Thus  he  was 
named  "  the  Messiah  "  (Mark  viii.  29 ;  xiv.  61 ;  John 
iv.  26);  "the  King  of  the  Jews"  (Mark  xv.  2;  John 
i.  49;  xviii.  33,  36,  37);  "the  Son  of  David"  (Mark  x. 
47,  48;  Matt.  xv.  22;  xxi.  9,  15);  "the  Holy  One  of 
God"  (John  vi.  69;  compare  Mark  i.  24);  "the 
Prophet "  (John  vi.  14 ;  vii.  40).  It  is  evident  that 
none  of  these  titles  was  common;  they  represent, 
rather,  the  bold  venture  of  more  or  less  intelligent 
faith  on  the  part  of  men  who  were  impressed  by  him. 
There  are  two  names,  however,  that  are  more  signifi- 
cant of  Jesus'  thought  about  himself,  — "the  Son  of 
God"  and  "the  Son  of  Man." 

259.  The  latter  of  these  titles  is  unique  in  the  use 
Jesus  made  of  it.  Excepting  Stephen's  speech  (Acts 
vii.  56},  it  is  found  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  and  its  precise  significance  is  still  a 
subject  of  learned  debate.  The  expression  is  found 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  poetical  equivalent  for 
Man,  usually  with  emphasis  on  human  frailty  (Ps. 
viii.  4;  Num.  xxiii.  19;  Isa.  li.  12),  though  some- 
times it  signifies  special  dignity  (Ps.  Ixxx.  17). 
Ezekiel  was  regularly  addressed  in  his  visions  as  Son 
of  Man  (Ezek.  ii.  1  and  often;  see  also  Dan.  viii.  17), 
probably  in  contrast  with  the  divine  majesty. 

260.  In  one  of  Daniel's  visions  (vii.  1-14)  the 
world-kingdoms  which  had  oppressed  God's  people 
and  were  to  be  destroyed  were  symbolized  by  beasts 


"THE   SON  OF  MAN"  255 

that  came  up  out  of  the  sea,  —  a  winged  lion,  a  bear,  a 
four-headed  winged  leopard,  and  a  terrible  ten-horned 
beast ;  in  contrast  with  these  the  kingdom  of  the  saints 
of  the  Most  High  was  represented  by  "  one  like  unto  a 
son  of  man,"  w^ho  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  (vii. 
13,  14).  Here  the  language  is  obviously  poetic,  and  is 
used  to  suggest  the  unapproachable  superiority  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  kingdoms  of  the  world. 
The  expression  "one  like  unto  a.  son  of  man"  is 
equivalent,  therefore,  to  "one  resembling  mankind." 
The  vision  in  Daniel  had  great  influence  over  the 
author  of  the  so-called  Similitudes  of  Enoch  (Book  of 
Enoch,  chapters  xxxvii.  to  Ixxi.).  He,  however,  per- 
sonified the  "one  like  unto  a  son  of  man,"  and  gave 
the  title  "the  Son  of  Man"  to  the  heavenly  man  who 
will  come  at  the  end  of  all  things,  seated  on  God's 
throne,  to  judge  the  world.  This  author  used  also 
the  titles  "the  Elect  One"  and  "the  Righteous  One" 
(or  "the  Holy  One  of  God"),  but  "the  Son  of 
Man  "  is  the  prevalent  name  for  the  Messiah  in  these 
Similitudes. 

261.  The  facts  thus  stated  do  not  account  for 
Jesus'  use  of  the  expression.  Many  of  his  sayings 
undoubtedly  suggest  a  development  of  the  Daniel 
vision  resembling  that  in  the  Similitudes.  This  does 
not  prove  that  Jesus  or  his  disciples  had  read  these 
writings,  though  it  does  suggest  the  possibility  that 
they  knew  them.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the 
apocalypses  gave  formulated  expression  to  thoughts 
that  were  more  widely  current  than  those  writings 
ever  came  to  be.  The  likeness  between  the  language 
of  Jesus  and  that  found  in  the  Similitudes  may 
therefore  prove  no  more  than  that  the  Daniel  vision 


256  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

was  more  or  less  commonly  interpreted  of  a  personal 
Messiah  in  Jesus'  day. 

262.  Much  of  the  use  of  the  title  by  Jesus,  how- 
ever, is  completely  foreign  to  the  ideas  suggested  by 
Enoch  and  Daniel.  Besides  apocalyptic  sayings  like 
those  in  Enoch  (Mark  viii.  38  and  often),  the  name 
occurs  in  predictions  of  his  sufferings  and  death 
(Mark  viii.  31  and  often),  and  in  claims  to  extraordi- 
nary if  not  essentially  divine  authority  (Mark  ii.  10, 
28  and  parallels);  it  is  also  used  sometimes  simply 
as  an  emphatic  "I"  (Matt.  xi.  19  and  often).  What- 
ever relation  Jesus  bore  to  the  Enoch  writings,  there- 
fore, the  name  "the  Son  of  Man"  as  he  used  it  was 
his  own  creation. 

263.  Students  of  Aramaic  have  in  recent  years 
asserted  that  it  was  not  customary  in  the  dialect 
which  Jesus  spoke  to  make  distinction  between  "the 
son  of  man"  and  "man,"  since  the  expression  com- 
monly used  for  "man"  would  be  literally  translated 
"son  of  man."  It  is  asserted,  moreover,  that  if  our 
gospels  be  read  substituting  "man"  for  "the  Son 
of  Man  "  wherever  it  appears,  it  will  be  found  that 
many  supposed  Messianic  claims  become  general  state- 
ments of  Jesus'  conception  of  the  high  preroga- 
tives of  man,  while  in  other  places  the  name  stands 
simply  as  an  emphatic  substitute  for  the  personal  pro- 
noun. Thus,  for  instance,  Jesus  is  found  to  assert 
that  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  belongs  to  man 
(Mark  ii.  10),  and,  toward  the  end  of  his  course,  to 
have  taught  simply  that  he  himself  must  meet  with 
suffering  (Mark  viii.  31),  and  will  come  on  the  clouds 
to  judge  the  world  (Mark  viii.  38).  The  proportion 
of  cases  in  which  the  general  reference  is  possible  is, 


"THE   SON  OF  MAN"  257 

however,  very  small;  and  even  if  the  equivalence  of 
"  man  "  and  "  son  of  man  "  should  be  established,  most  of 
the  statements  of  Jesus  in  which  our  gospels  use  the 
latter  expression  exhibit  a  conception  of  himself  which 
challenges  attention,  transcending  that  which  would 
be  tolerated  in  any  other  man.  The  debate  concern- 
ing the  usage  in  the  language  spoken  by  Jesus  is  not 
yet  closed,  however,  and  Dr.  Gustaf  Dalman  (WJ  I. 
191-197)  has  recently  argued  that  the  equivalence  of 
the  two  expressions  holds  only  in  poetic  passages,  pre- 
cisely as  it  does  in  Hebrew,  and  that  our  gospels  repre- 
sent correctly  a  distinction  observed  by  Jesus  when 
they  report  him,  for  instance,  as  saying  in  one  sen- 
tence, "the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  "  (Mark  ii.  27), 
and  in  the  next,  "  the  Son  of  Man  is  lord  even  of  the 
Sabbath."  The  antecedent  probability  is  so  great  that 
the  dialect  of  Jesus'  time  would  be  capable  of  express- 
ing a  distinction  found  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  in  the  Syriac  of  the  second-century  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  that  Dalman's  opinion  carries 
much  weight. 

264.  Many  of  those  who  look  for  a  distinct  sig- 
nificance in  the  title  "the  Son  of  Man,"  find  in  it 
a  claim  by  Jesus  to  be  the  ideal  or  typical  man,  in 
whom  humanity  has  found  its  highest  expression.  It 
thus  stands  sharply  in  contrast  with  "the  Son  of  God," 
which  is  held  to  express  his  claim  to  divinity.  So 
understood,  the  titles  represent  truth  early  recognized 
by  the  church  in  its  thought  about  its  Lord.  Yet  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  the  conception  "the  ideal 
man"  is  too  Hellenic  to  have  been  at  home  in  the 
thought  of  those  to  whom  Jesus  addressed  his  teach- 
ing.    If   the  phrase  suggested  anything  more  to   his 

17 


258  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

hearers  than  the  human  frailty  or  the  human  dignity 
of  him  who  bore  it,  it  probably  had  a  Messianic  mean- 
ing like  that  found  in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch.  A 
hint  of  this  understanding  of  the  name  appears  in  the 
perplexed  question  reported  in  John  (xii.  34):  "We 
have  heard  out  of  the  law  that  the  Messiah  abideth 
forever;  and  how  sayest  thou,  The  Son  of  Man  must 
be  lifted  up?  who  is  this  Son  of  Man?"  Here  the 
difficulty  arose  because  the  people  identified  the  Son  of 
Man  with  the  Messiah,  yet  could  not  conceive  how 
such  a  Messiah  could  die.  In  fact,  if  the  conception 
of  the  Son  of  Man  which  is  found  in  Enoch  had 
obtained  any  general  currency  among  the  people, 
either  from  that  book  or  independently  of  it,  it  was  so 
foreign  to  the  earthly  condition  and  manner  of  life  of 
the  Galilean  prophet,  that  it  would  not  have  occurred 
to  his  hearers  to  treat  his  use  of  the  title  as  a  Messianic 
claim  until  after  that  claim  had  been  published  in 
some  other  and  more  definite  form.  Their  Son  of 
Man  was  to  come  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  seated  on 
God's  throne,  to  execute  judgment  on  all  sinners  and 
apostates ;  the  Nazarene  fulfilled  none  of  these  condi- 
tions. The  name,  as  used  by  Jesus,  was  probably 
always  an  enigma  to  the  people,  at  least  until  he 
openly  declared  its  Messianic  significance  in  his  reply 
to  the  high-priest's  question  at  his  trial  (Mark  xiv. 
62),  and  gave  the  council  the  ground  it  desired  for  a 
charge  of  blasphemy  against  him. 

265.  What  did  this  title  signify  to  Jesus?  His 
use  of  it  alone  can  furnish  answer,  and  in  this  the 
variety  is  so  great  that  it  causes  perplexity.  "The 
Son  of  Man  came  eating  and  drinking"  is  his  descrip- 
tion of  his  own  life  in  contrast  with  John  the  Baptist 


"THE   SON  OF   MAN"  259 

(Matt.  xi.  18,  19).  "  The  Son  of  ]\Ian  hath  not  where 
to  lay  his  head  "  was  his  reply  to  one  over-zealous  fol- 
lower (Matt.  viii.  20).  Unseemly  rivalry  among  his 
disciples  was  rebuked  by  the  reminder  that  "  even  the 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to 
minister  "  (Mark  x.  42-45).  When  it  became  needful 
to  prepare  the  disciples  for  his  approaching  death  he 
taught  them  that  "  the  Son  of  Man  must  suffer  many 
things  .  .  .  and  be  killed,  and  after  three  days  rise 
again "  (IMark  viii.  31).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
paralytic's  cure  was  made  to  demonstrate  that  "the 
Son  of  Man  hath  authority  upon  the  earth  to  forgive 
sins  "  (Mark  ii.  10).  Similarly  it  is  the  Son  of  Man 
who  after  his  exaltation  shall  come  "  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father  with  the  holy  angels  "  (Mark  viii.  38).  In 
these  typical  cases  the  title  expresses  Jesus'  con- 
sciousness of  heavenly  authority  as  well  as  self-sacrific- 
ing ministry,  of  coming  exaltation  as  well  as  present 
lowliness ;  and  the  suffering  and  death  which  were  the 
common  lot  of  other  sons  of  men  were  appointed  for 
this  Son  of  Man  by  a  divine  necessity.  The  name  is, 
therefore,  more  than  a  substitute  for  the  personal  pro- 
noun; it  expresses  Jesus'  consciousness  of  a  mission 
that  set  him  apart  from  the  rest  of  men. 

266.  We  do  not  know  how  Jesus  came  to  adopt  this 
title.  Its  association  with  the  predictions  of  his  com- 
ing glory  shows  that  he  knew  that  in  him  the  Daniel 
vision  was  to  have  fulfilment.  The  predictions  of 
suffering  and  death,  however,  are  completely  foreign 
to  that  apocalyptic  conception,  being  akin  rather,  as 
Professor  Charles  has  suggested,  to  the  prophecies  of 
the  suffering  servant  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah  (Book  of 
Enoch,  p.  314-317).     Moreover,  it  may  not  be  fanci- 


260  THE  LITE  OF  JESUS 

ful  to  find  in  his  claims  to  heavenly  authority  a  hint 
of  the  thought  of  the  eighth  Psalm,  "Thou  madest 
him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands ; 
thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet "  (see  Dalman 
WJ  I.  218).  Although  the  name  expresses  a  con- 
sciousness of  dignity,  vicarious  ministry,  and  author- 
ity, similar  to  thoughts  found  in  Daniel,  Isaiah,  and 
the  Psalms,  it  was  not  deduced  from  these  scriptures 
by  any  synthesis  of  diverse  ideas.  It  rather  indicates 
that  Jesus  in  his  own  nature  realized  a  synthesis  which 
no  amount  of  study  of  scripture  would  ever  have  sug- 
gested. He  drew  his  conception  of  himself  from  his 
own  self-knowledge,  not  from  his  Messianic  medita- 
tions. On  his  lips,  then,  "the  Son  of  Man"  indicates 
that  he  knew  himself  to  be  the  Man  whom  God  had 
chosen  to  be  Lord  over  all  (compare  Dalman  as 
above).  The  lowly  estate  which  contradicted  the 
Daniel  vision  prevented  Jesus'  hearers  from  recog- 
nizing in  the  title  a  Messianic  claim ;  for  him,  how- 
ever, it  was  the  expression  of  the  very  heart  of  his 
Messianic  consciousness. 

267.  If  Jesus  gave  expression  to  his  official  con- 
sciousness when  he  used  the  name  "the  Son  of  Man," 
the  title  "  the  Son  of  God  "  may  be  said  to  express  his 
more  personal  thought  about  himself.  It  is  necessary 
to  distinguish  between  the*  meaning  of  this  title  to  the 
contemporaries  of  Jesus  and  his  own  conception  of  it. 
In  the  popular  thought  "the  Son  of  God"  was  the 
designation  of  that  man  whom  God  would  at  length 
raise  up  and  crown  with  dignity  and  power  for  the 
deliverance  of  his  people.  This  meaning  followed 
from  the  Messianic  interpretation  of  the  second  Psalm, 
in  which  the  theocratic  king  is  called  God's  son  (Ps. 


"THE   SON  OF  GOD"  261 

ii.  7).  In  another  psalm,  which  Jesus  himself  quotes 
(John  X.  34),  magistrates  and  judges  are  called  "sons 
of  the  Most  High  "  (Ixxxii.  6).  Another  Old  Testa- 
ment use  casts  light  on  this,  —  the  designation  of  Israel 
as  God's  son,  his  firstborn  (Ex.  iv.  22;  Hos.  i.  10), 
with  which  may  be  compared  a  remarkable  expression 
in  the  so-called  Psalms  of  Solomon  (xviii.  4),  "Thy 
chastisement  was  upon  us  [that  is,  Israel]  as  upon  a 
son,  firstborn,  only  begotten."  In  all  these  passages 
that  which  constitutes  a  man  the  son  of  God  is  God's 
choice  of  him  for  a  special  work,  while  Israel  collec- 
tively bears  the  title  to  suggest  God's  fatherly  love  for 
the  people  he  had  taken  for  his  own.  The  Messianic 
title,  therefore,  described  not  a  metaphysical,  but  an 
official  or  ethical,  relation  to  God.  It  is  certainly  in 
this  sense  that  the  high-priest  asked  Jesus  "  Art  thou 
the  Messiah  the  son  of  the  Blessed?"  (Mark  xiv.  61), 
and  that  the  crowd  about  the  cross  flung  their  taunts 
at  him  (Matt,  xxvii.  43),  and  the  demoniacs  pro- 
claimed their  knowledge  of  him  (Mark  iii.  11 ;  v.  7). 
The  name  must  be  interpreted  in  this  sense  also  in  the 
confession  of  Nathanael  (John  i.  49);  moreover,  it 
was  not  the  coupling  of  the  names  "Messiah"  and 
"son  of  the  living  God"  in  Peter's  confession  that 
gave  it  its  great  significance  for  Jesus.  In  all  of 
these  cases  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  has  been 
any  advance  over  the  theocratic  significance  which 
made  the  title  "the  Son  of  God"  fitting  for  the  man 
chosen  by  God  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises. 

268.  The  case  is  different  with  the  name  by  which 
Jesus  was  called  at  his  baptism  (Mark  i.  11).  The 
difference  here,  however,  arises  not  from  anything  in 
the  name  as  used  on  this  occasion,  but  from  that  in 


262  THE   LIFE   OF  JESUS 

Jesus  which  acknowledged  and  accepted  the  title. 
With  Jesus  the  consciousness  that  God  was  his  Father 
preceded  the  knowledge  that  as  "his  Son"  he  was  to 
undertake  the  work  of  the  Messiah.  The  force  of  the 
call  at  the  baptism  is  found  in  the  response  which  his 
own  soul  gave  to  the  word  "Thou  art  my  Son."  The 
nature  of  that  response  is  seen  in  his  habitual  refer- 
ence to  God  as  in  a  peculiar  sense  his  Father.  The 
name  "Father"  for  God  was  used  by  him  in  all  his 
teaching,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  or  any  of  his 
hearers  regarded  it  as  a  novelty.  Psalm  ciii.  13  and 
Isaiah  Ixiii.  16  indicate  that  the  conception  was  natural 
to  Jewish  thinking.  The  unique  feature  in  Jesus' 
usage  is  his  careful  distinction  between  the  general 
references  to  "your  Father"  and  his  constant  personal 
allusions  to  "my  Father."  Witness  the  reply  to  his 
mother  in  the  temple  (Luke  ii.  49) ;  his  word  to  Peter, 
"  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven  "  (Matt.  xvi.  17),  his 
solemn  warning,  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven  "  (Matt.  vii.  21),  and  the  promise,  "  Every  one 
who  shall  confess  me  before  men  .  .  .  him  will  I  also 
confess  before  my  Father"  (Matt.  x.  32).  Li  the 
fourth  gospel  the  same  intimate  reference  is  common: 
so,  for  example,  the  temple  is  "my  Father's  house" 
(ii.  16),  the  Sabbath  cure  is  defended  because  "my 
Father  worketh  even  until  now  "  (v.  17),  the  cures  are 
done  "in  My  Father's  name  "  (x.  25),  "I  am  the  vine, 
and  my  Father  is  the  husbandman"  (xv.  1).  This 
mode  of  expression  discloses  a  consciousness  of  unique 
filial  relation  to  God  which  is  independent  of,  even  as 


*'THE  SON  OF  GOD"  263 

it   was   antecedent   to,    the   consciousness   of    official 
relation. 

269.  The  full  name  "the  Son  of  God"  was  seldom 
applied  by  Jesus  to  himself,  the  only  recorded  instances 
being  found  in  the  fourth  gospel  (v.  25;  ix.  35?;  x. 
36;  xi.  4).  He  frequently  acquiesced  in  the  use  of 
the  title  by  others  in  addressing  him  (for  example, 
John  i.  49 ;  Matt.  xvi.  16 ;  xxvi.  63  f . ;  Mark  xiv. 
61  f . ;  Luke  xxii.  70) ;  but  for  himself  he  preferred 
the  simpler  phrase  "the  Son."  This  mode  of  expres- 
sion occurs  often  in  John,  and  is  found  also  in  the  two 
passages,  already  noticed,  in  which  the  other  gospels 
give  clearest  expression  to  the  extraordinary  self- 
assertion  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xi.  27;  Luke  x.  22;  and 
Mark  xiii.  32).  In  the  first  of  them  his  claim  to  be 
the  only  one  who  can  adequately  reveal  God  is  founded 
on  the  consciousness  that  the  relation  between  himself 
and  God  is  so  intimate  that  God  alone  adequately 
knows  him,  whom  men  were  so  ready  to  set  at  nought, 
and  he  alone  knows  God.  This  relation,  in  which  he 
and  God  stand  together  in  contrast  with  all  other 
men,  is  expressed  by  the  unqualified  names,  "the 
Father"  and  "the  Son."  In  the  second  passage  Jesus 
confessed  the  limitation  of  his  knowledge,  but  again 
in  such  a  way  as  to  set  himself  and  God  in  contrast  not 
only  with  men,  but  also  with  "the  angels  in  heaven." 
Such  assertions  as  these  indicate  that  he  who,  know- 
ing his  full  humanity,  chose  the  title  "the  Son  of 
Man"  to  express  his  consciousness  that  he  had  been 
appointed  by  God  to  be  the  Messiah,  was  yet  aware  in 
his  inner  heart  that  his  relation  to  God  was  even  closer 
than  that  in  which  he  stood  to  men. 

270,  There  is  no  word  in  John  which  goes  beyond 


264  THE  LIFE   or  JESUS 

the  two  self-declarations  of  Jesus  which  crown  the 
record  of  the  other  evangelists,  yet  in  the  fourth  gos- 
pel the  same  claim  to  unique  relation  to  God  is  more 
frequently  and  frankly  avowed.  The  most  unqualified 
assertion  of  intimacy — ■ "  I  and  the  Father  are  one  "  (x. 
30)  —  states  what  is  clearly  implied  throughout  the 
gospel  (so  xiv.  6-11 ;  xvi.  25 ;  and  particularly  xvii. 
21,  "that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one").  It 
has  often  been  said,  and  truly,  that  this  claim  to  unity 
with  the  Father,  taken  by  itself,  signifxcs  no  more 
than  perfect  spiritual  and  ethical  harmony  with  God. 
Yet  when  the  words  are  considered  in  their  connec- 
tion, and  more  particularly  when  the  two  supreme 
self-declarations  in  the  synoptic  gospels  are  associated 
with  them,  they  express  a  sense  of  relation  to  God  so 
utterly  unique,  so  strongly  contrasting  the  Father  and 
the  Son  with  all  others,  that  we  cannot  conceive  of 
any  other  man,  even  the  saintliest,  taking  like  words 
upon  his  lips. 

271.  These  titles  in  which  Jesus  gave  expression 
to  his  official  and  his  personal  consciousness  present 
clearly  the  problem  which  he  offers  to  human  thought. 
Jesus  stands  before  us  in  the  gospels  as  a  man  aware 
of  completest  kinship  with  his  brethren,  yet  conscious 
at  the  same  time  of  standing  nearer  to  God  than  he 
does  to  men. 

272.  It  is  highly  significant  that  the  gospel  which 
records  most  fully  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  more 
closely  related  to  God  than  he  was  to  men,  most  fully 
records  also  his  definite  acknowledgment  of  depend- 
ence on  his  Father,  and  of  that  Father's  supremacy 
over  him  and  all  others.  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself"  (John  v.   19),   "I  speak  not  from  myself" 


HIS  PERSONAL  RELIGION  265 

(xiv.  10),  "my  Father  is  greater  than  all"  (x.  29), 
"the  Father  is  greater  than  I"  (xiv.  28), — ^  these 
confessions  join  with  the  common  reference  to  God  as 
"him  that  sent  me  "  (v.  30  and  often)  in  giving  voice  to 
his  own  spirit  of  reverence.  It  appears  as  clearly  in 
his  habitual  submission  to  his  Father's  will,  —  "  My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to 
accomplish  his  work  "  (John  iv.  34);  "I  am  come  down 
from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  wdll  of 
him  that  sent  me "  (John  vi.  38).  This  submission 
reached  its  fulness  in  the  prayer  of  Gethsemane,  re- 
corded in  the  earlier  gospels,  —  "  Father,  all  things  are 
possible  unto  thee;  remove  this  cup  from  me:  how- 
beit  not  what  I  wdll,  but  what  thou  wilt  "  (Mark  xiv. 
36).  Jesus  was  a  man  of  prayer;  not  only  in  Geth- 
semane, but  also  throughout  his  ministry  he  habitually 
sought  his  Father  in  that  communion  in  which  the 
soul  of  man  finds  its  light  and  strength  for  life's  duty. 
When  he  was  baptized  (Luke  iii.  21),  after  the  first 
flush  of  success  in  Capernaum  (Mark  i.  35),  before 
choosing  the  twelve  (Luke  vi.  12),  before  the  ques- 
tion at  Csesarea  Philippi  (Luke  ix.  18),  at  the  trans- 
figuration (Luke  ix.  29),  on  the  cross  (Luke  xxiii.  46), 
—  at  all  the  crises  of  his  life  he  turned  to  God  in 
prayer.  Moreover,  prayer  was  his  habit,  for  it  was  after 
a  night  of  prayer  which  has  no  connection  with  any 
crisis  reported  for  us  (Luke  xi.  1),  that  he  taught  his 
disciples  the  Lord's  prayer  in  response  to  their  re- 
quests. The  prayer  beside  the  grave  of  Lazarus 
(John  xi.  41,  42)  suggests  that  his  miracles  were 
often,  if  not  always  (compare  Mark  ix.  29),  preceded 
by  definite  prayer  to  God.  His  habit  of  prayer  was 
the  natural  expression  of  his  trust  in  God.     From  the 


266  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

resistance  to  the  temptations  in  the  wilderness  to  the 
last  cry,  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit,"  his  life  is  an  example  of  childlike  faith  in 
God. 

273.  Yet  throughout  his  life  of  obedience  and  trust 
Jesus  never  gave  one  indication  that  he  felt  the  need 
of  penitence  when  he  came  before  God.  He  perceived 
as  no  one  else  has  ever  done  the  searching  inwardness 
of  God's  law,  and  demanded  of  men  that  they  tolerate 
no  lower  ambition  than  to  be  like  God,  yet  he  never 
breathed  a  sigh  of  conscious  failure,  or  gave  sign  that 
he  blushed  when  the  eternal  light  shone  into  his  own 
soul.  He  was  baptized,  but  without  confession  of  sin. 
He  challenged  his  enemies  to  convict  him  of  sin  (John 
viii.  46).  Such  a  challenge  might  have  rested  on  a 
man's  certainty  that  his  critics  did  not  know  his  inner 
life;  but  hypocrisy  has  no  place  in  the  character  of 
Jesus.  The  reply  to  the  rich  young  ruler,  "Why 
callest  thou  me  good? "  (Mark  x.  18),  even  if  it  was  a 
confession  that  freedom  from  past  sin  was  still  far  less 
than  that  absolute  goodness  that  God  alone  possesses, 
simply  sets  in  stronger  light  his  silence  concerning 
personal  failure,  and  his  omission  in  all  his  praying  to 
seek  forgiveness.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  that 
reply  deals  not  with  the  "good"  as  the  "ethically 
perfect,"  but  as  the  "supremely  beneficent,"  so  that 
Jesus  simply  reminded  the  seeker  after  life  that  God 
alone  is  the  one  to  be  approached  as  the  Gracious 
and  Merciful  One  by  sinful  men  (see  DalmanWJ  I. 
277).  Thus  the  reply  becomes  a  fresh  expression  of 
the  reverence  of  Jesus,  and  still  further  emphasizes 
his  failure  to  confess  his  sinfulness. 

274,  In  all  this  thought  about  himself  Jesus  stands 


THE   TRANSCENDENT   MAN  267 

before  us  as  a  man,  conscious  of  his  close  kinship  with 
his  fellows.  Like  them  he  hungered  and  thirsted  and 
grew  weary,  like  them  he  longed  for  friendship  and 
for  sympathy,  like  them  he  trusted  God  and  prayed  to 
God  and  learned  still  to  trust  when  his  request  was 
denied.  He  stands  before  us  also  as  a  man  conscious 
of  being  anointed  by  God  for  the  great  work  which  all 
the  prophets  had  foretold,  and  of  being  fully  equipped 
with  authority  and  power  and  the  promise  of  unap- 
proachable dignity.  Of  deep  religious  spirit  and  great 
reverence  for  the  scriptures  of  his  people,  he  yet  used 
these  scriptures  as  a  master  does  his  tools,  to  serve 
his  work  rather  than  to  instruct  him  in  it.  He  drew 
his  knowledge  from  within  and  from  above,  and  pro- 
claimed his  own  fulfilment  of  the  scriptures  when  he 
filled  them  with  new  meaning.  A  man  always  devout, 
always  at  prayer,  he  is  never  seen,  like  Isaiah,  prostrate 
before  the  Most  High,  crying,  "I  am  undone  "  (Isa. 
vi.  5).  In  his  moments  of  greatest  seriousness  and 
most  manifest  communion  with  heaven  he  looked  to 
God  as  his  nearest  of  kin,  and  felt  himself  a  stranger 
on  the  earth  fulfilling  his  Father's  will.  He  felt 
heaven  to  be  his  home  not  simply  by  God's  gracious 
promise,  but  by  the  right  of  previous  possession.  His 
kinship  with  men  was  a  condescension,  his  natural 
fellowship  was  with  God. 

275.  The  miracles  with  which  the  gospels  have 
filled  the  record  of  Jesus'  life  have  caused  perplexity 
to  many,  and  they  belong  with  other  mysterious  things 
recorded  for  us  in  the  story  of  the  past  or  occurring 
under  the  incredulous  observation  of  our  scientific 
generation.  They  all  pale,  hov/ever,  before  the  unac- 
countable  exception   presented    to    universal    human 


268  THE  LIFE   OF  JESUS 

experience  by  this  Man  of  Nazareth.  It  confronts  us 
when  we  think  of  the  unschooled  Jew  who,  in  his 
thought  of  God,  rose  not  only  above  all  of  his  genera- 
tion, but  higher  than  all  who  had  gone  before  him,  or 
have  come  after,  one  who  built  on  the  foundation  of 
the  past  a  superstructure  of  religion  new,  and  simple, 
and  clearly  heavenly.  It  confronts  us  when  we  think 
of  this  Man  Avho  believed  that  it  was  given  to  him  to 
establish  the  kingdom  that  should  fill  the  whole  earth, 
and  who  had  the  boldness  and  the  faith  to  ignore  the 
opposition  of  all  the  world's  wisdom  and  of  all  its 
enthroned  power,  and  to  fulfil  his  task  as  the  woman 
does  who  hides  her  leaven  in  the  meal,  content  to  wait 
for  years,  or  millenniums,  until  his  truth  shall  con- 
quer in  the  realization  of  God's  will  on  earth  even  as 
it  is  done  in  heaven.  It  confronts  us  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  Man  who  has  shown  his  brethren  what 
obedience  means,  who  has  taught  them  to  pray,  who 
has  been  for  all  these  centuries  the  Way,  the  Truth, 
the  Life,  by  whom  they  come  to  God,  habitually 
claimed  without  shadow  of  abashment  or  slightest  hint 
of  conscious  presumption,  a  nature,  a  relation  to  God, 
a  freedom  from  sin,  that  other  men  according  to  the 
measure  of  their  godliness  would  shun  as  blasphemy. 
If  the  personal  claim  was  true,  and  not  the  blind 
pretence  of  vanity,  the  Jesus  of  the  gospels  is  the 
exception  to  the  uniform  fact  of  human  nature,  but  he 
is  no  longer  unaccountable ;  and  if  his  claim  was  true, 
his  knowledge  of  the  absolute  religion,  and  his  choice 
of  the  irresistible  propaganda,  are  no  less  extraordinary, 
but  they  are  not  unaccountable.  Paul,  whose  life  was 
transformed  and  his  thinking  revolutionized  by  his 
meeting  with  the  risen  Jesus,  thought  on  these  things 


THE  MAN  FROM  HEAVEN  269 

and  believed  that  "  the  name  which,  is  above  every 
name  "  was  his  by  right  of  nature  as  well  as  by  the  re- 
ward of  obedience  (Phil.  ii.  5-11).  John,  who  leaned 
on  Jesus'  breast  during  his  earthly  life,  and  who  medi- 
tated on  the  meaning  of  that  life  through  a  ministry  of 
many  decades,  came  to  believe  that  he  whom  he  had 
seen  with  his  eyes,  heard  with  his  ears,  handled  with 
his  hands,  was,  indeed,  "  the  Word  made  flesh  "  (John 
i.  11),  through  whom  the  very  God  revealed  his  love 
to  men.  Through  all  the  perplexities  of  doubt,  amidst 
all  the  obscurings  of  irrelevant  speculations,  the  hearts 
of  men  to-day  turn  to  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  their 
supreme  revelation  of  God,  and  find  in  him  "the 
Master  of  their  thinking  and  the  Lord  of  their  lives." 

"  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the  words 
of  eternal  life.  And  we  have  believed  and  know  that 
thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God." 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 

BOOKS  OF  EEFEKENCE  ON  THE  LIFE  OF 
JESUS 

1.  A  coxcisE  account  of  the  voluminous  literature  on 
this  subject  maybe  found  at  the  close  of  the  article  Jesus 
Christ  by  Zockler  in  Schaff-Herzog,  Encyclopedia  of  Re- 
ligious Knowledge.  Of  the  earlier  of  the  modern  works 
it  is  well  to  mention  David  Friedrich  Strauss,  Das  Leben 
Jesu  (2  vols.  1835),  in  which  he  sought  to  reduce  all  the 
gospel  miracles  to  myths.  August  Neander,  Das  Leben 
Jesu  Christi,  1837,  Avrote  in  opposition  to  the  attitude 
taken  by  Strauss.  Both  of  these  works  have  been  trans- 
lated into  English.  Ernst  Eenan,  Vie  de  Jesus  (1863, 
16th  ed.  1879),  translated,  The  Life  of  Jesus  (1863),  is  a 
charming,  though  often  superficial  and  patronizing,  pres- 
entation of  the  subject.  For  vivid  word  pictures  of 
scenes  in  the  life  of  Jesus  his  book  is  unsurpassed.  Ke- 
nan's inability  to  appreciate  the  more  serious  aspects  of 
the  work  of  Christ  appears  constantly,  while  his  effort 
to  discover  romance  in  the  life  of  Jesus  is  offensive. 
More  important  than  any  of  these  is  Theodor  Keim, 
Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara  (1867-72,  3  vols.),  translated, 
The  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara  (1876-81,  6  vols.).  The 
author  rejects  the  fourth  gospel  and  holds  that  Matthew 
is  the  most  primitive  of  the  synoptic  gospels  ;  he  does 
not  reject  the  supernatural  as  such,  but  reduces  it  as 
much  as  possible  by  recognizing  a  legendary  element  in 
the  gospels.  When  the  work  is  read  with  these  peculi- 
arities in  mind,  it  is  one  of  the  most  stimulating  and 
spiritually  illuminating  treatments  of  the  subject. 

18 


274  APPENDIX 

2.  Critically  more  trustworthy,  and  exegetically  very 
valuable,  is  Bernhard  Weiss,  Das  Lehen  Jesu  (3d  ed. 
1889,  2  vols.),  translated  from  the  first  ed.,  The  Life  of 
Christ  (1883,  3  vols.).  It  is  more  helpful  for  correct 
understanding  of  details  than  for  a  complete  view  of  the 
Life  of  Jesus.  Eivalling  Weiss  in  many  ways,  yet  neither 
so  exact  nor  so  trustworthy,  though  more  interesting,  is 
Willibald  Beyschlag,  Das  Lehen  Jesu  (3d  ed.  1893,  2 
vols.).  The  most  important  discussion  in  English  is 
Alfred  Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Mes- 
siah (1883  and  later  editions,  2  vols.).  This  is  valuable 
for  its  illustration  of  conditions  in  Palestine  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  by  quotations  from  the  rabbinic  literature.  The 
material  used  is  enormous,  but  is  not  always  treated 
with  due  criticism,  and  the  book  should  be  read  with  the 
fact  in  mind  that  most  of  the  rabbinic  writings  date  from 
several  centuries  after  Christ.  Schiirer  (see  below)  should 
be  used  wherever  possible  as  a  counter-balance.  Dr. 
Edersheim  follows  the  gospel  story  in  detail ;  his  book  is, 
therefore,  a  commentary  as  well  as  a  biography. 

3.  Albert  Reville,  Jesus  de  Nazareth  (1897,  2  vols.), 
aims  to  bring  the  work  of  Eenan  up  to  date,  and  to 
supply  some  of  the  lacks  which  are  felt  in  the  earlier 
treatise.  The  book  is  pretentious  and  learned.  In  some 
parts,  as  in  the  treatment  of  the  youth  of  Jesus,  and  of 
the  sermon  on  the  mount,  it  is  helpfully  suggestive.  The 
Jesus  whom  the  author  admires,  however,  is  the  Jesus  of 
Galilee.  The  journey  to  Jerusalem  was  a  sad  mistake, 
and  the  assumption  of  the  Messianic  role  a  fall  from  the 
high  ideal  maintained  in  the  teaching  in  Galilee.  In 
criticism  M.  Eeville  accepts  the  two  document  synoptic 
theory,  and  assigns  the  fourth  gospel  to  about  140  a.  d. 
He  rejects  the  supernatural,  explaining  many  of  the  mir- 
acles as  legendary  embellishments  of  actual  events. 

4.  The  most  important  treatment  of  the  subject  is  the 
article  Jesus  Christ  by  William  Sanday  in  the  Hastings 
Bible  Dictionary  (1899).  It  is  of  the  highest  value,  dis- 
cussing the  subject  topically  with  great  clearness  and  with 


APPENDIX  275 

a  rare  combination  of  learning  and  common  sense.  S.  T. 
Andrews,  Tlie  Life  of  Our  Lord  (2d  ed.  1892),  is  a  thorough 
and  very  useful  study  of  the  gospels,  considering  minutely 
all  questions  of  chronology,  harmony,  and  geography. 
It  presents  the  different  views  with  fairness,  and  offers 
conservative  conclusions.  G.  H.  Gilbert,  Tke  StudenVs 
Life  of  Jesus  (1896),  is  complete  in  plan  and  careful  in 
treatment,  while  being  very  concise.  Dr.  Gilbert  faces  the 
problems  of  the  subject  frankly,  and  his  treatment  is 
scholarly  and  reverent.  James  Stalker,  The  Life  of  Jesus 
Christ  (1880),  is  a  short  work  whose  value  lies  in  the 
good  conception  which  it  gives  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
viewed  as  a  whole.  In  simplicity,  insight,  and  clearness 
the  book  is  a  classic,  though  now  somewhat  out  of  date. 
Studies  in  the  Lfe  of  Christ,  by  A.  M.  Fairbairn  (1882), 
is  of  great  value  for  the  topics  considered.  The  title  in- 
dicates that  the  treatment  is  fragmentary.  The  long 
treatises  of  Farrar  (1875,  2  vols.)  and  Geikie  (1877,  2 
vols.)  are  useful  as  commentaries  on  the  words  and 
works  of  Jesus.  Farrar  often  interprets  most  helpfully 
the  essence  of  an  incident,  and  Geikie  furnishes  a  mass  of 
illustrative  material  from  rabbinic  sources,  though  with 
less  criticism  than  even  Edersheim  has  used.  Neither 
of  these  works,  however,  deals  v/ith  the  fundamental 
problems  of  the  composition  of  the  gospels,  nor  are  they 
satisfactory  on  other  perplexing  questions,  for  example, 
the  miraculous  birth. 

5.    The  most  important  accessory  for  the  study  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  is  Erail   Schiirer,   Geschichte  des  Judischen 
Volkes  im  ZeitaUer  Jesu    Christi  (2d  ed.  1886,  1890,    2 
j  vols.     A  3d  ed.  of  2d  part  in  2  vols.,  1898),  translated,  A 
I    History  of  the  Jewish  Peojjle  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ 
I     (1885-6,  5  vols.).     The  political  history  of  the  Jews  from 
175b.  c.  to  135  A.D.,  and  the  intellectual  and  religious  life 
of  the  times  in  which  Jesus  lived,  with  the  Jewish  liter- 
ature of  Palestine  and  the  dispersion,  are  all  treated  with 
thoroughness  and  masterful  learning.     W.  Baldensperger, 
Das  Selhstbewusstsein  Jesu  im  Lichte  der  messianischen 


276  APPENDIX 

Hoffnungen  seiner  Zeit  (2d  ed.  1892),  furnishes  in  the 
first  part  a  survey  of  the  Messianic  hopes  of  the  Jews 
which  is  in  many  respects  the  most  satisfactory  account 
that  is  accessible.  The  second  part  discusses  the  problem 
of  Jesus'  conception  of  himself  in  a  reverent  and  learned 
way.  George  Adam  Smith,  The  Historical  Geography  of 
the  Holy  Land  (1894),  is  indispensable  for  the  study 
of  the  physical  features  of  the  land  as  they  bear  on  its 
history,  and  on  the  work  of  Jesus.  The  maps  are  the 
best  that  have  yet  appeared. 

6.  Discussions  of  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  in  works  on 
Biblical  Theology  have  much  that  is  important  for  the 
study  of  Jesus'  life.  The  most  significant  is  H.  H. 
Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu  (1886,  2  vols.).  The  second  vol- 
ume has  been  translated  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  (1892,  2 
vols.)  ;  the  first  volume  of  the  original  work  is  an  elaborate 
discussion  of  the  sources,  and  has  not  been  done  into  Eng- 
lish. Eeference  may  be  made  especially  to  H.  J.  Holtz- 
mann,  Lehrhuch  der  NeutestamentUchen  Theologie  (1897, 
2  vols.),  and  also  to  G.  H.  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus 
(1899).  Gustaf  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu  (1898),  of  which 
the  first  volume  only  has  appeared,  is  a  study  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  most  significant  expressions  used  in  the  gospel 
records  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  made  with  the  aid  of 
thorough  knowledge  of  Aramaic  usage  and  of  the  lan- 
guage of  post-canonical  Jewish  literature. 

7.  A  good  synopsis  or  Harmony  of  the  gospels  is  most 
useful.  The  best  Harmony  is  that  of  Stevens  and  Burton 
(1894),  which  exhibits  the  divergencies  of  the  parallel 
accounts  in  tlie  gospels  as  faithfully  as  the  agreements. 
A  good  synopsis  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  first  three  gos- 
pels is  Huck,  Sy7iopse  {1S92).  Eobinson's  Greek  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels,  edited  by  M.  B.  Eiddle,  using  Tischen- 
dorf's  text,  has  also  valuable  notes  discussing  questions 
of  harmony. 


APPENDIX 


277 


ABBREVIATIONS 


AndLOL  .     . 
BaldSJ      .     . 

BeysLJ      .     . 

BovonNTTh 

DalmanWJ    . 
EdersLJM      . 

FairbSLX  . 

GilbertLJ .  . 

GilbertPvJ  . 

HoltzXtTh  . 

KeimJN    .     . 

RevilleJN      . 
SandayllastBD 

SchurerJPTX 


SmithHGHL 
SB   ...     . 


WeissLX 

WendtLJ 
WendtTJ 
EnBib. 
HastBD 
SBD2    . 


Andrews,  The  Life  of  Our  Lord,  2ded.,  1892. 

Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewusstsciu  Jesu, 
2ded.,  1892. 

Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  3d  ed.,  2  vols., 
1893. 

Bovon,  Theologie  du  Nouveau  Testament, 
1892. 

Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  L,  1898. 

Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  2  vols.,  1883. 

Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  1882. 

Gilbert,  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus,  1896. 

Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  1899. 

Holtzmann,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  2 
vols.,  1897. 

Keim,  The  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara,  6  vols., 
1876-81. 

R^ville,  J^sus  de  Nazareth,  2  vols.,  1897. 

Sanday,  the  article  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
Hastings  Bible  Dictionary,  1899. 

Schiirer,  The  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in 
the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  1885-86.  Di- 
vision I.  vols.  i.  and  ii. ;  Division  II.  vols. 
i.,  ii.,  and  iii. 

Smith,  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy 
Land,  1894. 

Stevens  and  Burton,  Harmony  of  the  Gos- 
pels, 1894. 

Weiss,  The  Life  of  Christ,  3  vols.,  1883. 

Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  2  vols.,  1886. 

Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  2  vols.,  1892. 

Encyclopedia  Biblica,  1899. 

Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  1898. 

Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  revision  of 
the  first  volume  of  the  original  English 
edition,  1893. 


EEFERENCES 
Part  I.  —  PEEPARATOEY 
I 

THE   HISTORICAL   SITUATION 

8.  Read  Sanday  HastBD  II.  604-609.  On  the  Land,  its 
physical  characteristics,  its  political  divisions,  its  climate, 
its  roads,  and  its  varying  civilization,  SmithHGHL  is  un- 
surpassed. Its  identifications  of  disputed  localities  are 
cautious.  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  and 
Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book,  give  fuller  detail  con- 
cerning particular  localities,  but  no  such  general  view  as 
Smith. 

9.  On  Political  conditions,  SchtirerJPTX  I.  i.  and  ii.  is 
the  fullest  and  most  trustworthy  treatise.  More  concise 
essays  are  Oscar  Holtzmann,  Nt.  Zeitgeschichte  (1895), 
57-118;  S.  Mathews,  History  of  NT  Times  in  Palestine 
(1899),  1-158  ',  Riggs,  Maccabean  and  Roman  Periods  of 
Jewish  History  (1900),  especially  §§  206-234,  257-267, 
276-282.  On  the  Religious  Life  and  Parties  in  Palestine, 
SchtirerJPTX  II.  i.  and  ii.  ;  0.  Holtzmann,  NtZeitg,  136- 
177;  Mathews,  NT  Times,  see  index;  Riggs,  Mac.  and 
Rom.  Periods,  §§  235-256;  Muirhead,  The  Times  of 
Christ  (1898),  69-150.  In  addition  Wellhausen,  Die 
Pharisder  und  die  Sadducder  (1874)  ;  on  the  Essenes, 
Conybeare  in  HastBD  I.  767-772,  also  Lightfoot,  Colos- 
sians,  80-98,  347-419 ;  Wellhausen,  Isr.  «.  jUd.  Ge- 
schichte  ^  (1897),  258-262  ;  on  the  Samaritans,  A.  Cowley, 
\Ti  Expos.  V.  i.  161-174;  Jew.  Quar.  Rev.  VIII.  (1896) 
562-575. 


APPENDIX  279 

10.  On  the  Messianic  hope,  SchtirerJPTX  IT.  ii.  126- 
187  ;  BaldS  J  3-122  ;  Mnirhead,  Times  of  Xt.,  112-150 ; 
Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels  (1894),  1-40 ;  WendtTJ  I. 
33-84 ;  Mathews,  NT  Times,  159-169 ;  Kiggs,  Mac.  and 
Rom.  Feriods,  §§  251-256. 

11.  On  the  language  of  Palestine  see  Arnold  Meyer, 
Jesu  Muttersjjniche  (1896)  ;  DalmanWJ  I.  1-57  ;  Schiirer 
JPTX  II.  i.  8-10,  47-51 J  Neubauer,  Studia  Biblica,  I. 
39-74. 

12.  On  Jewish  literature  dating  near  the  times  of  Jesus 
see  SchtirerJPTX  II.  iii. ;  BaldSJ.  3-122  ;  EdersLJM 
I.  31-39;  Deane,  Pseiide^ngraioha  (1891);  Thomson, 
Books  which  influenced  our  Lord,  etc.  (1891)  ;  and  special 
editions,  such  as  Alexandre,  Sibylline  Oracles  (1869) ; 
Deane,  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (1881)  ;  Charles,  The 
Book  of  Enoch  (1893),  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  (1896), 
The  Assumption  of  Moses  (1897),  and  The  Book  of  Jubi- 
lees (1895)  ;  Charles  and  Morfill,  The  Secrets  of  Enoch 
(1896)  ;  Ryle  and  James,  The  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees 
[Psalms  of  Solomon]  (1891)  ;  Bensly  and  James,  Fourth 
Esdras  (1895);  Charles,  EnBib  I.  213-250;  HastBD  I. 
109  f.;  Porter,  HastBD  1.  110-123;  James,  EnBib  I. 
249-261. 

II 

THE    SOURCES 

13.  On  the  sources  outside  the  gospels  see  Anthony, 
Introduction  to  the  Life  of  Jesus,  19-108  ;  KeimJX  1. 12-59; 
BeysLJ  1.  59-72  ;  GilbertLJ  74-78  ;  Knowling,  Witness  of 
the  Epistles ;  Stevens,  Pauline  Theol.  204-208;  Sabatier, 
Apostle  Pa.ul^  76-85.  On  Josephus  as  a  source  see  also 
SchtirerJPTX  I.  ii.  143-149  ;  Revillej:^  I.  272-280.  On 
the  individual  gospels  see  Burton,  The  Purpose  and  Plan 
of  the  Four  Gospels  (Univ.  Chic.  Press,  1900)  ;  Bruce,  With 
Open  Face,  1-61 ;  Weiss,  Introduction  to  N.  T.,  II.  239- 
386 ;  Julicher,  Einleitung  i.  d.  NT,  189-207.    On  Matthew, 


280  APPENDIX 

Burtou  Bib.  Wld.  I.  1898,  37-44,  91-101 ;  on  Mark,  Swete, 
Comm.  on  Mark,  ix-lxxxix  ;  on  Luke,  Plummer,  Comm.  on 
Luke,  xi-lxx  ;  Mathews,  Bib.  Wld.  1895,  I.  336-342,  448- 
455 ;  on  John,  Burton,  Bib.  Wld.  1899,  I.  16-41,  102-105  ; 
Westcott,  Comm.  on  John,  v-lxxvii;  Bhees  in  Abbott's 
The  Bible  as  Literature,  281-297.  On  the  synoptic  ques- 
tion see  Sanday  SBD,-  1217-1243,  and  Expositor,  Feb.- 
June,  1891 ;  Woods,  Studia  Bihlica,  II.  59-104 ;  Salmon, 
Introduction,'^  99-151,  570-581;  Stanton  in  HastBD  II. 
234-243;  Jillicher,  Mini.  207-227.  A.  Wright,  Com- 
position of  the  Four  Gospels  (1890)  and  Some  NT  Proh- 
lems  (1898),  defends  the  oral  tradition  theory  in  a  modified 
form.  On  possible  dislocations  in  John  see  Spitta,  Urchris- 
tentum,  I.  157-204 ;  Bacon,  Jour.  Bib.  Lit.  1894,  64-76 ; 
Burton,  Bib.  Wld.  1899,  I.  27-35.  For  the  history  of 
opinion  see  specially  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Einl.^  340-375.  On 
the  Johannine  question  see  Sanday,  Expositor,  Nov.  1891- 
May  1892  ;  Schiirer,  Cont.  Eev.  Sept.  1891 ;  Watkins  SBD  ^ 
1739-1764;  Burton,  Bib.  Wld.  1899,  1. 16-41 ;  Eeynolds  in 
HastBD  II.  694-722;  Zahn,  Einl.  II.  445-564  (defends 
Johannine  authorship) ;  Jtilicher,  Einl.  238-250  (rejects 
Johannine  authorship).  For  the  history  of  opinion  see 
Watkins,  Bampton  Lecture  for  1890  ;  Holtzmann,  Einl.^ 
433-438.  P.  Ewald,  Haup)tprohlem  der  evang.  Frage,  ar- 
gues the  authenticity  of  the  fourth  gospel  from  the  one- 
sidedness  of  the  synoptic  story.  See  also  Jour.  Bib.  Lit. 
1898,  I.  87-102. 

14.  Keville  proposes  to  reconstruct  Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  3.  3 
thus  :  "  ^  At  that  time  appeared  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  who  did 
astonishing  things.  That  is  why  a  good  number  of  Jews 
and  also  of  Greeks  attached  themselves  to  him.'  Then 
follows  some  phrase  probably  signifying  that  these  adher- 
ents had  committed  the  error  of  proclaiming  him  Christ, 
and  then  ^  denounced  by  the  leading  men  of  the  nation, 
this  Jesus  was  condemned  by  Pilate  to  die  on  the  cross. 
But  those  who  had  loved  him  before  persevered  in  their 
sentiment,  and  still  to-day  there  exists  a  class  of  people 
who  take  from  him  their  name  Christians.' '' 


APPENDIX  281 

15.  On  the  testimony  of  Papias  (Euseb.  Ch,  Hist.  iii. 
39.  4)  see  Liglitfoot,  Cont.  Rev.  1875,  II.  379  ff.,  and 
McGiffert's  notes  in  his  Uusebius,  170  ff. 

16.  For  a  collection  of  probably  genuine  Agrapha  see 
Ropes,  Die  Sprilche  Jesu,  154-161,  and  Amer.  Jour.  Theol. 
1897,  758-776 ;  Resch,  Agrajiha,  gives  a  much  longer  list. 
He  is  criticised  by  Ropes.  On  lost  and  uncanonical  gos- 
pels see  Salmon,  IntrJ  173-190,  580-591 ;  Krliger,  Early 
Christian  Literature,  50-57.  For  the  recently  discovered 
Gospel  of  Peter  see  Swete,  The  Gospel  of  Feter  ;  and  on 
the  so-called  Sayings  of  Jesus  found  in  Egypt  in  1896  see 
Harnack,  Expositor,  V.  vi.  321-340,  401-416,  and  essay 
by  Sanday  and  Lock.  Apocryphal  Gospels  are  most  con- 
veniently found  in  Ante-nicene  Fathers,  YIII.  361-476. 


Ill 


THE    HARMONY    OF    THE    GOSPELS 

17.  The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  is  translated  with  notes 
by  Hill,  The  Earliest  Life  of  Christ.  See  also  Ante-nio. 
Fathers,  IX.  35-138. 

18.  For  the  extreme  position  concerning  Doublets  see 
Holtzmann,  Hand-commentar  zuvi  NT  I.  passim.  E. 
Haupt,  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1884,  25,  remarks  that  Jesus 
must  often  have  repeated  his  teaching  in  essentially  the 
same  form. 

IV 

CHROXOLOGY 

19.  For  data  and  discussion  of  the  various  problems  see 
Wieseler,  Chronological  Synopsis;  Lewin,  Fasti  Sacra; 
KeimJN"  11.  379-402;  AndLOL  1-52;  SchlirerJPTX 
I.  ii.  30-32,  105-143;  0.  Holtzmann,  NtZeitg,  118- 
124,    125-127,    131-132;    Turner    HastBD    I.    403-415,' 


282  APPENDIX 

Eamsay,  Was  Christ  horn  at  Bethlehem  ;  and  von  Soden 
in  EnBib.  I.  799-812.  For  patristic  opinion  concerning 
the  length  of  Jesus'  ministry,  see  HastBD  I.  410.  For 
the  argument  for  a  one-year  ministry,  see  KeimJJ^l' 
II.  398;  0.  Holtzmann,  NtZeitg,  131  f.  For  two 
years,  see  Wieseler,    Chron.    Synop.  204-220 ;    WeissLX 

I.  389-392;  Turner  in  HastBD.  For  three  years,  see 
AndLOL  189-198 ;  note  by  Eobertson  in  Broadus, 
Harmony  of  the   Gosjyels,  241-244.     Compare  EevilleJK 

II.  227-231 ;  Zahu,  M/iL  II.  516  f. 


THE    EARLY   YEARS 

20.  On  the  problem  of  the  Virgin  birth  see  GilbertLJ 
79-89 ;  WeissLX  I.  211-233 ;  Swete,  Jpos.  Creed,  42-55 ; 
Bruce,  Apolorjetics,  407-413 ;  Eopes,  Andover  Eev.  1893, 
695-712;  FairbSLX  30-45 ;  Godet,  Comni.  on  Luke,  Eem. 
on  chaps.  I.  and  II.;  BovonNTTh  I.  198-217.  These 
maintain  historicity.  The  other  side  :  BeysLJ  I.  148- 
174;  Meyer,  Comm.  on  3fatt.,  Eem.  on  I.  18  ;  KeiraJX  II. 
38-101  ;  Eeville,  New  World,  1892,  695-723,  and  JN  I. 
361-408;  HoltzmannNtTh  I.  409-415.  On  the  early 
years  of  Jesus  see  EdersLJM  I.  217-254;  WeissLX  I. 
275-293 ;  Hughes,  Manliness  of  Xt,  35-60 ;  WendtTJ 
I.  90-96 ;  Stapfer,  Jesits  Christ  before  his  Ministry ; 
FairbSLX  46-63;  BeysLJ  II.  44-65;  EevilleJN  L 
409-438. 

21.  For  some  of  the  early  legends  concerning  the  birth 
and  childhood  of  Jesus,  see  the  so-called  Frotevangeliam 
of  James,  the  Gospel  of  Pseudo-Mattheiv,  and  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas,  Ante-nic.  Fathers,  VIII.  361-383,  395-398.  For 
Jewish  calumnies  see  Laible,  J.  X.  im  Thalmud,  9-39. 

22.  On  the  two  genealogies  see  AndLOL  62-68  ; 
WeissLX  I.  211-221;  Godet  on  Luke,  iii.  23-38.  These 
refer  Luke's  genealogy  to  Mary.  Hervey  SBD^  1145- 
1148,  Plummer  on  Luke,  iii.  23,  EdersLJM  I.  149,  Gil- 


APPENDIX  283 

bertLJ  81  f.,  with  the  early  fathers  (see  Plummer),  refer 
both  to  Joseph.  For  the  view  that  they  are  unauthentic 
see  Holtzmaun,  Hand-comm.  I.  39-41 ;  13acon  in  HastBD 
II.  137-141. 

23.  On  the  "  brethren  ^^  of  Jesus  see  Mayor,  HastBD  I. 
320-326  ;  AndrewsLOL  111-123.  These  make  the  breth- 
ren sons  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  Lightfoot,  Galatians,^''  252- 
291,  regards  them  as  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  former  marriage. 


VI 

JOHN    THE    BAPTIST 

24.  On  the  character  and  work  of  John  the  Baptist  see 
KeiraJJST  II.  201-266  and  references  in  the  index  under 
John  the  Baptist.  Keim's  is  much  the  most  satisfactory 
treatment ;  it  is,  moreover,  Keim  at  his  best.  See  also 
Ewald,  Hist,  of  Israel,  VI.  160-200 ;  WeissLX  I.  307-316  ; 
FairbSLX  64-79;  W.  A.  Stevens,  Homil.  Eev.  1891,  II. 
163  ff.;  Bebb  in  HastBD  II.  677-680;  Wellhausen  Isr, 
u.  judische  Geschichte,  342  f .  ;  Feather,  Last  of  the  Froph- 
ets,  Reynolds,  John  the  Baptist,  obscures  its  excel- 
lencies by  a  vast  amount  of  irrelevant  discussion. 

25.  On  the  existence  of  a  separate  company  of  disciples 
of  John  see  Mk.  ii.  18,  Mt.  ix.  14,  Lk.  v.  33;  Mk.  vi.  29, 
Mt.  xiv.  12  ;  Mt.  xi.  2  f.,  Lk.  vii.  18  f. ;  Lk.  xi.  1 ;  Jn.  i. 
35  f . ;  iii.  25 ;  Ac.  xix.  1-3.  Consult  Lightfoot,  Colossians, 
400  ff. ;  Baldensperger,  Der  Prolog  des  vierten  Evange.li- 
ums,  93-152. 

VII 

THE   MESSIANIC    CALL 

26.  On  the  baptism  of  Jesus  see  WendtTJ  I.  96-101 ; 
EdersLJM  1.  278-287;  BaldSJ  219-229.  WeissLX  1. 
316-336  says  that  the  baptism  meant  for  Jesus,  already 


284  APPENDIX 

conscious  of  his  Messiahship,  "  the  close  of  his  former  life 
and  the  opening  of  one  perfectly  new "  (322) ;  Keim JjST 
II.  290-299  makes  it  an  act  of  consecration,  but  elimi- 
nates the  Voice  and  Dove;  BeysLJ  I.  215-231  thinks 
that  Jesus,  conscious  of  no  sin,  yet  not  aware  of  his 
Messiahship,  sought  the  baptism  carrying  "the  sins  and 
guilt  of  his  people  on  his  heart,  as  if  they  were  his 
own"  (229).  Against  Beyschlag  see  E.  Haupt  in  Studien 
u.  Kritiken,  1887,  381.  Baldensperger  shows  clearly  that 
the  Messianic  call  was  a  revelation  to  Jesus,  not  a  con- 
clusion from  a  course  of  reasoning. 

27.  On  the  temptation  see  WendtTJ  I.  101-105; 
WeissLX  I.  337-351;  EdersLJM  I.  299-307;  Fair- 
bairnSLX  80-98;  BaldSJ  230-236;  BeysLJ  I.  231-237; 
KeimJN  II.  317-329.  All  these  see  in  temptation  the 
necessary  result  of  the  Messianic  call  at  the  baptism. 

28.  The  locality  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
determined.  Tradition  has  fixed  on  one  of  the  fords  of 
the  Jordan  near  Jericho,  see  SmithHGHL  496,  note  1. 
On  the  probable  location  of  Betliany  (Bethabarah) 
(Jn.  i.  28)  see  discussion  in  AndLOL  146-151;  EnBib 
548 ;  and  especially  Smith's  note  as  above. 

29.  On  the  anointing  of  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
see  WeissLX  I.  323-336;  BeysLJ  I.  230  f.  For  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  in  the  later  life  of  Jesus  see 
Mk.  i.  12;  Mt.  iv.  1;  Lk.  iv.  1;  iv.  14,  18,  21;  Mk. 
iii.  29,  30;  Mt.  xii.  28;  Jn.  iii.  34;  compare  Ac.  i.  2; 
X.  38.  Clearly  these  refer  not  to  the  ethical  and  relig- 
ious indwelling  of  the  Divine  Spirit  (comp.  Eom.  i.  4), 
but  to  the  special  equipment  for  official  duty.  This  is 
the  OT  sense,  see  Ex.  xxxi.  2-5;  Jud.  iii.  10;  I.  Sam. 
xi.  6;  Isa.  xi.  If.;  xlii.  1;  Ixi.  1;  and  consult  Schultz, 
Old  Test.  Theol.  II.  202  f.  Jesus  seems  to  have  needed  a 
like  divine  equipment,  notwithstanding  his  divine  nature. 
See  GilbertL J  121  f . 

30.  How  this  Messianic  anointing  is  to  be  related  to 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus'  essential  divine  nature  cannot  be 
determined  with  certainty.     It  must  not   be  forgotten, 


APPENDIX  285 

however,  that  it  is  a  clatu7n  for  Christology,  and  that  it 
cannot  be  explained  away.  It  indicates  one  of  the  par- 
ticulars in  which  Jesus  was  made  like  unto  his  brethren. 
What  was  involved  when  the  Son  of  God  "  emptied  him- 
self and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men"  (Phil.  ii.  7) 
we  can  only  vaguely  conceive.  Two  views  of  early 
heretical  sects  seem  rightly  to  have  been  rejected.  The 
Docetic  view,  held  by  some  Gnostics  of  the  2d  cent.,  dates 
the  incarnation  from  the  baptism,  but  distinguishes  Christ 
from  the  human  Jesus,  who  only  served  as  a  vehicle  for 
the  manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God;  the  Christ  descended 
on  Jesus  at  the  baptism,  ascending  again  to  heaven  from 
the  cross,  compare  Mt.  iii.  16  and  xxvii.  50  in  the  Greek ; 
see  Schaff  Hist,  of  Xn  Church''  II.  455  f.  The  recently 
discovered  Gospel  of  Peter  presents  this  view,  Gosp.  Pet. 
§  5.  The  jSTestorian  view  represents  that  the  baptism  was, 
in  a  sense,  Jesus'  "  birth  from  above  "  (Jn.  iii.  3,  5) ;  thus 
the  incarnation  was  first  complete  at  the  baptism  though 
the  Logos  had  been  associated  with  Jesus  from  the  be- 
ginning. See  Schaff,  Hist,  of  Xn  Church,^  III.  717 ff.; 
Conybeare,  History  of  Xmas,  Amer.  Jour.  Theol.  1899, 
1-21. 

31.  The  traditional  locality  of  the  temptation  is  a 
mountain  near  Jericho  called  Quarantana,  see  And. 
LOL  155;  the  tradition  seems  to  date  no  further  back 
than  the  crusades.  It  is,  however,  probable  that  the 
"wilderness''  (Mt.  iv.  1,  Mk.  i.  12,  Lk.  iv.  1)  is  the  same 
wilderness  mentioned  in  connection  with  John's  earlier 
life  and  work  (Mt.  iii.  1,  Mk.  i.  4),  the  region  W 
and  NW  of  the  Dead  Sea,  see  SmithHGHL  317. 
Others  (Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  308 ;  EdersLJ^f 
I.  300,  339  notes)  hold  that  the  temptation  took  place  in 
the  desert  regions  SE  of  the  sea  of  Galilee ;  this  is 
possibly  correct,  though  the  record  in  the  gospels  suggests 
the  wilderness  of  Judea.  On  the  source  of  the  tempta- 
tion story  see  WeissLX  I.  339  If. ;  BeysL J  I.  234 ;  Bacon, 
Bib.  Wld.  1900,  I.  18-25. 


286  APPENDIX 

yiii 

THE    FIRST    DISCIPLES 

32.  SandcayHastBD  II.  612  f.;  GilbertLJ  144-157; 
WeissLX  I.  355-387 ;  AnclLOL  155-165  ;  EdersLJM  I. 
336-363  ;  BeysLJ  II.  129-148  (assigns  here  a  considerable 
part  of  the  synoptic  account  of  work  in  Capernaum). 

33.  The  early  confessions.  On  the  genuineness  of  the 
Baptist's  testimony  to  "  the  Lamb  of  God  "  see  M.  Dods 
in  Expos,  Gk.  Test.  I.  695  f . ;  Westcott,  Comm.  on  John,  20 ; 
EdersLJM  I.  342  ff. ;  WeissLX  I.  362  f.  (thinks  the  evan- 
gelist added  "  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world")  ; 
Holtzmann^  Hand-comm.  IV.  38  f.  holds  that  the  evangelist 
has  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  Baptist  a  conception  which 
was  first  current  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  On  the  con- 
fessions of  Nathanael  and  the  others,  see  Jour.  Bib.  Lit. 
1898,  21-30. 

34.  Cana  is  probably  the  modern  Khirbet  Kana,  eight 
miles  N  of  Nazareth.  A  rival  site  is  Kefr  Kenna,  three 
and  one-half  miles  NE  from  Nazareth.  See  EnBib  and 
HastBD,  also  AndLOL  162-164. 

35.  The  miracles  of  Jesus  are  challenged  by  modern 
thought.  It  is  customary  in  reading  other  documents 
than  the  N.  T.  instantly  to  relegate  the  miraculous  to 
the  domain  of  legend.  Miracles,  however,  are  integral 
parts  of  the  story  of  Jesus'  life,  and  those  who  attempt 
to  write  that  life  eliminating  the  supernatural  are  con- 
strained to  recognize  that  he  had  marvellous  power  as 
an  exorcist  and  healer  of  some  forms  of  nervous  dis- 
ease. So  E.  A.  Abbott,  The  Spirit  on  the  Waters,  169- 
201.  Our  knowledge  of  nature  does  not  warrant  a  dog- 
matic definition  of  the  limits  of  the  possible ;  see  James, 
The  Will  to  Believe,  vii.-xiii.,  299-327.  The  question  is 
confessedly  one  of  adequate  evidence.  The  evidence  for 
the  supreme  miracle  —  the  transcendent  character  of 
Jesus  —  is  clear,  see  Part  III.  chap.  iv. ;  and  the  miracu- 


APPENDIX  287 

Ions  element  in  the  story  of  his  life  must  be  considered 
in  view  of  this  supreme  miracle.  In  association  with 
him  his  miracles  gain  in  credibility.  In  estimating  the 
evidence  for  them  their  dignity  and  worthiness  is  impor- 
tant. What  the  devout  imagination  would  do  in  embel- 
lishing the  story  of  Jesus  is  exhibited  in  the  apocryphal 
gospels ;  the  miracles  of  the  canonical  gospels  are  of  an 
entirely  different  type,  which  commends  them  as  authen- 
tic. By  definition  a  miracle  is  an  event  not  explicable  in 
terms  of  ordinary  human  experience.  It  is  therefore 
futile  to  attempt  to  picture  the  miracles  of  Jesus  in 
their  occurrence,  for  the  imagination  has  no  material  ex- 
cept that  furnished  b}^  ordinary  experience.  For  our  day 
the  miracles  are  of  importance  chiefly  for  the  exhibition 
they  give  of  the  character  of  Jesus ;  they  can  be  studied 
with  this  in  view  without  regard  to  the  curious  question 
how  they  happened.  Kead  SandayHastBD  II.  624-628; 
and  see  Fisher,  Grounds  of  Christian  and  Theistic  Belief, 
chaps,  iv.-vi.,  S2iper7iatural  Origin  of  Christianity,^  chap, 
xi. ;  Bruce,  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels ;  Apolo- 
getics, 409 ff.;  Illingworth,  Divine  Immanence;  Kainy, 
Orr,  and  Dods,  The  Supernatural  in  Christianity. 


Part  II.  —  THE   MINISTRY 
I 

GENERAL    SURVEY 

36.  SandayHastBD  II.  609  f.;  GilbertLJ  136-143; 
AndLOL  125-137;  BeysLJ  I.  256-295. 

II 

THE    EARLY    MINISTRY    IN   JUDEA 

37.  SandayHastBD  II.  612  ^-613  ^ ;  WeissLX  II.  3-53 ; 
EdersLJM  I.  364-429;  BeysLJ  II.  147-168;  GilbertLJ 
158-179. 


288  APPENDIX 

38.  On  the  chronological  significance  of  John  iv.  35  see 
AndLOL  183;  WeissLX  II.  40;  Wieseler,  Synop.  212^., 
who  find  indication  that  the  journey  was  in  December. 
EdersLJM  I.  419  f. ;  Turner  in  HastBD  I.  408,  find  indi- 
cation of  early  summer.  Some  treat  iv.  35  as  a  proverb 
with  no  chronological  significance ;  so  Alford,  Comvi.  on 
John. 

39.  Geographical  notes.  Aenon  near  Salim  has  not 
been  identified.  Most  favor  a  site  in  Samaria,  seven 
miles  from  a  place  named  Salim,  v/hich  lay  four  miles 
E  of  Shechem,  see  Conder,  Tent  Work  in  Palestine, 
II.  57,  58;  Stevens,  Jour.  Bib.  Lit.  1883,  128-141.  But 
can  John  have  been  baptizing  in  Samaria?  WeissLX 
II.  28  says  "it  is  perfectly  impossible  that  he  [John] 
can  have  taken  up  his  station  in  Samaria."  Other  sug- 
gestions are :  some  place  in  the  Jordan  valley  (but  then 
why  remark  on  the  abundance  of  water,  Jn.  iii.  23  ?) ; 
near  Jerusalem  ;  and  in  the  south  of  Judea.  See  AndLOL 
173-175.  Sychar  is  the  modern  ^Askar,  about  a  mile  and 
three-quarters  from  Nablus  (Shechem),  and  half  a  mile 
N  of  Jacob's  well.     See  SmithHGHL  367-375. 

40.  General  questions.  Was  the  temple  twice  cleayisedf 
(see  sect.  116).  Probably  not.  The  two  reports  (Jn.  ii. 
13-22;  Mk.  xi.  15-18  ||s)  are  similar  in  respect  of  Jesus' 
indignation,  its  cause,  its  expression,  its  result,  and  a 
consequent  challenge  of  his  authority.  They  differ 
in  the  time  of  the  event  (John  assigns  to  first  Pass- 
over, synoptics  to  the  last)  and  in  a  possibly  greater 
sternness  in  the  synoptic  account.  These  differences 
are  no  greater  than  appear  in  otlier  records  of  identical 
events  (compare  Mt.  viii.  5-13  with  Lk.  vii.  2-10),  while 
the  repetition  of  such  an  act  would  probably  have  been 
met  by  serious  opposition.  If  the  temple  was  cleansed 
but  once,  John  indicates  the  true  time.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  ministry  it  was  a  demand  that  the  people  follow 
the  new  leader  in  the  purification  of  God's  house  and  the 
establishment  of  a  truer  worship.  At  the  end  it  could 
have  had  only  a  vindictive  significance,  since  the  people 


APPENDIX  289 

had  already  signified  to  the  clear  insight  of  Jesus  that 
they  would  not  accept  his  leadership.  For  two  distinct 
cleansings  see  the  discussion  in  AndLOL  169  f.,  437 ; 
EdersLJM  I.  373 ;  Plummer  on  Luke  xix.  45  f.  Eor  one 
cleansing  at  the  end  see  KeiraJN"  V.  113-131.  For  one 
cleansing  at  the  beginnnig  see  WeissLX  II.  6  ff . ;  BeysLJ 
II.  149ff.;  GilbertLJlo9ff. 

41.  The  journey  to  Galilee.  Do  John  (iv.  1-4,  43-45) 
and  Mark  (i.  14  =  Mt.  iv.  12 ;  Lk.  iv.  14)  report  the  same 
journey  ?  Both  are  journeys  from  the  south  introducing 
work  in  Galilee;  yet  the  reasons  given  for  the  journey 
are  different  (compare  Jn.  iv.  1-3  with  Mk.  i.  14).  If 
the  Pharisees  had  a  hand  in  John's  "delivering  up" 
(Mk.  i.  14;  comp.  Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  5.  2),  the  same  hostile 
movement  may  have  impelled  Jesus  to  leave  Judea. 
He  may  not  have  heard  of  John's  imprisonment  until 
after  his  departure,  or  some  time  before  he  opened  his 
new  ministry  in  Galilee.  See  GilbertLJ  173  f.  AndLOL 
176-182  argues  against  the  identification. 

42.  The  nobleman^ s  son  (Jn.  iv.  46-54).  Is  this  a  doub- 
let of  Mt.  viii.  5-13 ;  Lk.  vii.  2-10  ?  John  differs  from 
synoptics  in  the  time,  the  place,  the  disease,  the  suppli- 
ant, his  plea,  and  Jesus'  attitude.  Matthew  and  Mark 
differ  from  each  other  concerning  the  bearers  of  the  cen- 
turion's messages  to  Jesus.  John's  account  is  similar 
to  synoptic  superficially,  but  is  probably  not  a  doublet. 
Compare  Syro-Phcenician's  daughter  (Mk.  vii.  29  f.). 
See  GilbertLJ  202;  Meyer  on  John  iv.  51-54;  Plummer 
on  Luke  vii.  10.  WeissLX  II.  45-51  identifies.  Read 
SandayHastBD  II.  613. 


Ill   AND   lY 

THE    MIXISTRY    IN    GALILEE 

43.  Read  SandayHastBD  II.  613-630  ;  GilbertLJ  180- 
283.  Consult  WeissLX  11.  44  to  III.  153 ;  EdersLJM  I. 
472  to  11. 125  ;  BeysLJ  II.  140-147, 168-294.  See  AndLOL 

19 


290  APPENDIX 

209-363  for  discussion  of  details,  and  KeimJISr  III.  10  to 

IV.  346  for  an  illuminating,  though  not  unprejudiced, 
topical  treatment. 

44.  Geographical  notes.  Capernaum.  The  site  is  not 
clearly  identified,  two  ruins  on  the  ISTW  of  Sea  of  Galilee 
are  rival  claimants,  —  Tell  Hum  and  Khan  Minyeh.  Tell 
Hum  is  advocated  by  Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  Central 
Pal.  and  Phcenicia  (1882),  416-420  ;  Khan  Minyeh,  by 
SmithHGHL  456,  EtiBib  I.  696  ff.  Latter  is  probably 
correct.     See  AndLOL  224-237. 

Bethsaida.  The  full  name  is  Bethsaida  Julias,  lo- 
cated at  entrance  of  Jordan  into  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
SmithEnBib  I.  565  f.,  HGHL  457  f.,  shows  that  there  is 
no  need  of  the  hypothesis  of  a  second  Bethsaida  to  meet 
the  statement  in  Mk.  vi.  45,  or  that  in  Jn.  i.  44.  See 
also  AndLOL  230-236.  Ewing  HastBD  1.2821  renews 
the  argument  for  two  Bethsaidas. 

Chorazin  was  probably  the  modern  Kerazeh,  about 
one  mile  N  of  Tell  Hum,  and  back  from  the  lake. 
See  SmithEnBib  I.  751 ;  HGHL  456  ;  AndLOL  237  f. 

45.  The  mountain  of  the  sermon  on   the   mount  (Mt. 

V.  1 ;  Lk.  vi.  12)  probably  refers  to  the  Galilean  high- 
lands as  distinct  from  the  shore  of  the  lake.  More 
definite  location  is  not  possible.  See  AndLOL  268  f.; 
EdersLJM  I.  524.  The  traditional  site,  the  Horns  of 
Hattiu,  is  a  hill  lying  about  seven  miles  SW  from  Khan 
Minyeh,  which  has  near  the  top  a  level  place  (Lk.  vi. 
17)  flanked  by  two  low  peaks  or  "  horns." 

46.  The  country  of  the  Gerasenes,  Gadarenes,  or  Ger- 
gesenes.  Gadarenes  is  the  best  attested  reading  in  Mt. 
viii.  28,  Gerasenes  in  Mk.  v.  1  and  Lk.  viii.  26 ;  Ger- 
gesenes  has  only  secondary  attestation.  Gadara  is  iden- 
tified with  Um  Keis  on  the  Yarmuk,  some  six  miles  SE 
of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  This  cannot  have  been  the  site 
of  the  miracle,  though  it  is  possible  that  Gadara  may 
have  controlled  the  country  round  about,  including  the 
shores  of  the  sea.  Gerasa  is  the  name  of  a  city  in  the 
highlands   of   Gilead,   twenty  miles   E   of   Jordan,   and 


APPENDIX  291 

thirty-five  SE  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  it  clearly  can- 
not have  been  the  scene  of  the  miracle.  Near  the 
E  shore  of  the  sea  Thomson  discovered  the  ruins  of  a 
village  which  now  bears  the  name  Khersa.  The  forma- 
tion of  the  land  in  the  neighborhood  closely  suits  the 
narrative  of  the  gospels.  This  is  now  accepted  as  the 
true  identification.  See  Thomson  Land  and  Book,  Cen- 
tral Palestine,  353-355 ;  SBD  ^  1097-1100 ;  HastBD  II. 
159  f. ;  AndLOL  296-300.  The  name  "  Gadarenes  "  may 
indicate  that  Gadara  had  jurisdiction  over  the  region  of 
Khersa ;  the  names  "  Gerasenes  "  and  "  Gergesenes  "  may 
be  derived  directly  and  independently  from  Khersa,  or 
may  be  corruptions  due  to  the  obscurity  of  Khersa. 

47.  The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  took  place  on  the 
E  of  the  sea,  in  a  desert  region,  abundant  in  grass,  and 
mountainous,  and  located  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  place 
named  Bethsaida.  Near  the  ruins  of  Bethsaida  Julias 
is  a  plain  called  now  Butaiha,  "  a  smooth,  grassy  place 
near  the  sea  and  the  mountains,''  which  meets  the  re- 
quirements of  the  narrative.     See  AndLOL  322  f. 

48.  The  return  of  Jesus  from  the  regions  of  Tyre 
^Hhrough  Sldon''  (Mk.  vii.  31)  avoided  Galilee,  crossing 
N  of  Galilee  to  the  territory  of  Philip  and  ^'the  Decap- 
olisj'  This  latter  name  applies  to  a  group  of  free  Greek 
cities,  situated  for  the  most  part  E  of  the  Jordan.  Most 
of  the  cities  of  the  group  were  farther  S  than  the  Sea 
of  Galilee ;  some,  however,  were  E  and  jSTE  of  that  sea, 
hence  Jesus'  approach  from  C?esarea  Philippi  or  Damas- 
cus could  be  described  as  "  through  Decapolis."  See 
SmithHGHL  593-608;  EnBib  I.  1051  ff. ;  SchiirerJPTX 
II.  i.  94-121. 

49.  Of  Magadan  (Mt.  xv.  39)  or  Dalmanutha  (Mk. 
viii.  10)  all  that  is  known  is  that  they  must  have  been 
on  the  W  coast  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  They  have  never 
been  identified,  though  there  are  many  conjectures.  See 
SBD,2  HastBD,  and  EnBib. 

50.  Ccesarea  Philip}^^  was  situated  at  the  easternmost 
and  most  important  of  the  sources  of  the  Jordan,  it  is 


292  APPENDIX 

called  Panias  by  Jos.  Ant.  xv.  10. 3,  now  Banias.  Probably 
a  sanctuary  of  the  god  Pan.  Here  Herod  the  Great  built 
a  temple  which  he  dedicated  to  Ceesar ;  Philip  the 
Tetrarch  enlarged  the  town  and  called  it  Caesarea 
Philippi.     See  SBD ;  ^  HastBD ;  EuBib. 

51.  The  mountain  of  the  transfiguration.  The  tradi- 
tional site,  since  the  fourth  century,  is  Tabor  in  Galilee. 
Most  recent  opinion  has  favored  one  of  the  shoulders  of 
Hermon,  owing  to  the  supposed  connection  of  the  event 
with  the  sojourn  near  Coesarea  Philippi.  WeissLX  III. 
98  points  out  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  Jesus  lin- 
gered for  "  six  days "  (Mk.  ix.  2)  near  that  town,  and 
that  therefore  the  effort  to  locate  the  transfiguration  is 
futile.  GilbertLJ  274  thinks  that  Mk.  ix.  30  is  decisive 
in  favor  of  a  j)lace  outside  Galilee ;  he  therefore  holds  to 
the  common  view  that  Hermon  is  the  true  locality.  See 
AndLOL  357  f. 

h2.  General  questions.  Was  Jesus  twice  rejected  at 
Nazareth?  (comp.  Lk.  iv.  16-30  with  Mk.  vi.  1-6 ■'j 
Mt.  xiii.  54-58).  Here  are  two  accounts  that  read  like 
independent  traditions  of  the  same  event ;  they  agree 
concerning  the  place,  the  teaching  in  the  synagogue  on 
the  Sabbath,  the  astonishment  of  the  Nazarenes,  their 
scornful  question,  and  Jesus'  rejoinder.  Luke  makes 
no  reference  to  the  disciples  (Mk.  vi.  1)  nor  to  the 
working  of  miracles  (Mk.  vi.  5)  ;  Matthew  and  Mark,  on 
the  other  hand,  say  nothing  of  an  attempt  at  violence. 
These  differences  are  no  more  serious,  however,  than 
appear  in  the  two  accounts  of  the  appeal  of  the  cen- 
turion to  Jesus  (Mt.  viii.  5-8 ;  Lk.  vii.  3-7).  Moreover, 
Lk.  iv.  23  indicates  a  time  after  the  ministry  in  Caper- 
naum had  won  renown,  which  agrees  with  the  place 
given  the  rejection  in  Mark.  The  general  statement 
(Lk.  iv.  14  f.)  suggests  that  the  visit  to  Nazareth  is  given 
at  the  beginning  as  an  instance  of  "preaching  in  their 
synagogues."  The  three  accounts  probably  refer  to  one 
event  reported  independently.  For  identification  see 
WeissLX  in.  34j  Plummer  on  Luke  iv.  30;    GilbertLJ 


APPENDIX  293 

2541  For  two  rejections  see  Godet's  supplementary  note 
on  Lk.  iv.  16-30;  Meyer  on  Mt.  xiii.  53-58;  EdersLJM  I. 
457,  note  1 ;  Wieseler,  Synopsis,  278.  BeysLJ  I.  270  iden- 
tifies but  prefers  Luke's  date. 

53.  Were  there  two  miracidous  draughts  of  fish?  Lk. 
V.  1-11  is  sometimes  identified  with  Jn.  xxi.  3-13.  So 
WendtLJ  L  211  f.,  WeissLX  11.  57  f .,  and  Meyer  on 
Luke  Y.  1-11.  Against  the  identification  see  Alford, 
Godet,  and  Plummer  on  the  passage  in  Luke.  The  two 
are  alike  in  scene,  the  night  of  bootless  toil,  the  great 
catch  at  Jesus'  word.  They  differ  in  personnel,  antece- 
dent relations  of  the  fishermen  with  Jesus,  the  effect  of 
the  miracle  on  Peter,  and  the  subsequent  teaching  of 
Jesus,  as  well  as  in  time.  These  differences  make  identi- 
fication difficult. 

54.  WJiere  in  the  synoptic  story  should  the  journey  to 
the  feast  in  Jerusalem  (Jn.  v.)  be  placed?  There  is 
nothing  in  John's  narrative  to  identify  the  feast,  although 
it  is  his  custom  to  name  the  festivals  to  which  he  refers 
(Passover,  ii.  13,  23 ;  vi.  4 ;  xi.  ^b ;  xii.  1 ;  Tabernacles, 
vii.  2 ;  Dedication,  x.  22).  Even  if  John  wrote  "the 
feast,"  rather  than  ''a  feast "  (the  MSS.  vary,  A  B  D  and 
seven  other  uncials  omit  the  article),  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  decide  between  Passover  and  Tabernacles.  The 
omission  of  the  article  suggests  either  that  the  feast  was 
of  minor  importance,  or  that  its  identification  was  of  no 
significance  for  the  understanding  of  the  following  dis- 
course. Since  a  year  and  four  months  probably  elapsed 
between  the  journey  into  Galilee  (Jn.  iv.  35)  and  the  next 
Passover  mentioned  in  John  (vi.  4),  v.  1  may  refer  to 
any  one  of  the  feasts  of  the  Jewish  year.  The  com- 
monest interpretation  prefers  Purim,  a  festival  of  a  sec- 
ular and  somewhat  hilarious  type,  which  occurred  on  the 
14th  and  15th  of  Adar,  a  month  before  the  Passover.  It 
is  difficult  to  believe  that  this  feast  would  have  called 
Jesus  to  Jerusalem.  See  WeissLX  II.  391 ;  GilbertLJ 
137-139,  142,  234-235.  Against  this  interpretation  see 
EdersLJM  II.    765.     Edersheim  advocates   the  feast  of 


294  APPENDIX 

Wood  Gathering  on  the  15th  of  Ab  —  about  our  August. 
On  this  day  all  the  people  were  permitted  to  offer  wood 
for  the  use  of  the  altar  in  the  temple,  while  during  the 
rest  of  the  year  the  privilege  was  reserved  for  special 
families.  See  LJM  II  765  f .  ;  Westcott,  Comm.  on  John, 
add.  note  on  v.  1,  argues  for  the  feast  of  Trumpets,  or 
the  new  moon  of  the  month  Tisri,  —  about  our  September, 
—  which  was  celebrated  as  the  beginning  of  the  civil 
year.  Others  have  suggested  Pentecost,  fifty  days  after 
the  Passover ;  the  day  of  Atonement  —  but  this  was  a 
fast,  not  a  feast;  and  Tabernacles.  The  majority  of  those 
who  do  not  favor  Purim  prefer  the  Passover,  notwith- 
standing the  difficulty  of  thinking  that  John  would  refer 
to  this  feast  simply  as  "  a  feast  of  the  Jews."  E-ead 
AndLOL  193-198,  remembering  that  the  question  must 
be  considered  independently  of  the  question  of  the  length 
of  Jesus'  ministry.  The  impossibility  of  determining 
the  feast  renders  the  adjustment  of  this  visit  to  the 
synoptic  story  very  uncertain.  It  may  be  that  there  was 
some  connection  between  the  Sabbath  controversy  in 
Galilee  (Mk.  ii.  23-28)  and  the  criticism  Jesus  aroused 
in  Jerusalem  (Jn.  v.).  If  so,  one  of  the  spring  feasts, 
Passover  or  Pentecost,  would  best  suit  the  circumstances ; 
but  this  arrangement  is  quite  uncertain. 

55.  Do  the  five  conflicts  of  Mk.  ii.  1  to  Hi.  6  belong  at 
the  early  place  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  to  which  that 
gospel  assigns  them?  It  is  commonly  held  that  they  do 
not,  and  the  argument  for  a  two-year  ministry  rests  on 
this  assumption  (see  SandayHastBD  II.  613).  Holtz- 
mann,  Hand-commentar  I.  9  f.,  remarks  that  at  least  for 
the  cure  of  the  paralytic  and  for  the  call  and  feast  of 
Levi  (Mk.  ii.  1,  13,  15)  the  evangelist  was  confident  that 
he  was  following  the  actual  order  of  events  ;  note  the 
call  of  the  fifth  disciple,  Mk.  ii.  13,  between  the  call  of 
the  four,  Mk.  i.  16-20,  and  that  of  the  twelve,  iii.  16-19. 
The  question  about  fasting  may  owe  its  place  (Mk.  ii. 
18-22)  to  association  with  the  criticism  of  Jesus  for 
eating  with  publicans  (Mk.  ii.  16).     In  like  manner  the 


APPENDIX  295 

second  Sabbath  conflict  (Mk.  iii.  1-6)  may  be  attached 
to  the  first  (ii.  23-28)  as  a  result  of  the  identity  of  sub- 
ject, for  it  is  noteworthy  that  Mark  records  only  these 
two  Sabbath  conflicts;  moreover,  the  plot  of  Herodians 
and  Pharisees  to  kill  Jesus  strongly  suggests  a  later  time 
for  the  actual  occurrence  of  this  criticism.  The  first  Sab- 
bath question,  however,  may  belong  early,  as  Mark  has 
placed  it.  Weiss,  Markusevangelium,  76,  LX  II.  232  ff., 
places  these  conflicts  late.  Edersheim,  LJM  II.  51  ff., 
discusses  the  Sabbath  controversies  after  the  feeding  of 
the  multitudes.-  KevilleJN  II.  229  places  the  first  of 
them  early. 

56.  The  sermon  on  the  mount.  Luke  (vi.  12-19  — 
Mk.  iii.  13-19  ^)  indicates  the  place  in  the  Galilean  min- 
istry;  Matthew  has  therefore  anticipated  in  assigning 
it  to  the  beginning.  The  identity  of  the  two  sermons 
(Mt.  V.  1  to  vii.  27;  Lk.  vi.  20-49)  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  each  begins  with  beatitudes,  each  closes  with  the 
parables  of  the  wise  and  foolish  builders,  each  is  followed 
by  the  cure  of  a  centurion's  servant  in  Capernaum  (Mt. 
viii.  5-13;  Lk.  vii.  1-10),  and  the  teachings  which  are 
found  in  each  account  are  given  in  the  same  order. 
Matthew  is  much  fuller  than  Luke,  many  teachings 
given  in  the  sermon  in  Matthew  being  found  in  later 
contexts  in  Luke.  Much  of  the  sermon  in  Matthew, 
however,  evidently  belonged  to  the  original  discourse, 
and  was  omitted  by  Luke,  perhaps  because  of  less  inter- 
est to  Gentile  than  to  Jewish  Christians.  The  follow- 
ing sections  are  found  elsewhere  in  Luke,  and  were 
probably  associated  with  the  sermon  by  the  first  evan- 
gelist: Mt.  V.  25,  26;  Lk.  xii.  58,  59;  Mt.  vi.  9-13;  Lk. 
xi.  2-4;  Mt.  vi.  19-34;  Lk.  xii.  21-34;  xi.  34-36;  xvi. 
13 ;  Mt.  vii.  7-11 ;  Lk.  xi.  9-13 ;  Mt.  vii.  13,  14 ;  Lk.  xiii. 
24.  The  first  evangelist's  habit  of  grouping  may  explain 
also  the  presence  in  his  sermon  of  teachings  which  he 
himself  has  duplicated  later,  thus  :  Mt.  v.  29,  30  —  xviii. 
8,  9  ;  V.  32  rrr  xix.  9,  com  p.  Mk.  x.  11,  ix.  43-47,  Lk.  xvi.  18  ; 
Mt.  vi.  14,  15  =  Mk.  xi.  25.     Matthew  vii.  22,  23  has  the 


296  APPENDIX 

character  of  tlie  teachings  which  follow  the  confession  at 
Csesarea  Philippi,  and  is  quite  unlike  the  other  early 
teachings.  It  may  belong  to  the  later  time,  for  it  was 
natural  for  the  early  Christians  to  associate  together 
teachings  which  the  Lord  uttered  on  widely  separated 
occasions.  The  sermon  as  originally  given  may  be 
analyzed  as  follows:  The  privileges  of  the  heirs  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  Mt.  v.  3-12 ;  Lk.  vi.  20-26 ;  their  re- 
sponsibilities, Mt.  V.  13-16 ;  the  relation  of  the  new  to 
the  old,  Mt.  V.  17-19 ;  the  text  of  the  discourse,  Mt.  v. 
20 ;  the  new  conception  of  morality,  Mt.  v.  21-48 ;  Lk.  vi. 
27-36;  the  new  practice  of  religion,  Mt.  vi.  1-8,  16-18; 
warning  against  a  censorious  spirit,  Mt.  vii.  1-6 ;  Lk.  vi. 
37-42 ;  the  tree  judged  by  its  fruits,  Mt.  vii.  16-20 ;  Lk. 
vi.  43-46  ;  the  wise  and  foolish  builders,  Mt.  vii.  24-27 ; 
Lk.  vi.  47-49. 

57.  The  discourse  in  parables.  Matthew  gives  seven 
parables  at  this  point  (xiii.),  Mark  (iv.  1-34)  has  three, 
one  of  them  not  given  in  Matthew,  Luke  (viii.  4-18)  gives 
in  this  connection  but  one,  —  the  Sower.  Many  think 
that  the  Tares  of  Matthew  (xiii.  24-30,  36-43)  is  a  doublet 
of  Mark's  Seed  growing  secretly  (iv.  26-29) ;  so  Weiss 
LX  XL  209  note,  against  which  view  see  WendtLJ  I. 
178  f.,  and  Bruce,  Parabolic  Teaching  of  Xt,  119.  Matthew 
has  probably  made  here  a  group  of  parables,  as  in  chap- 
ters V.  to  vii.  he  has  made  a  group  of  other  teachings. 
The  interpretation  of  the  Tares,  and  of  the  Draw-net 
(xiii.  40-43,  49,  50),  may  indicate  that  these  parables 
were  spoken  after  Jesus  began  to  teach  plainly  concern- 
ing the  end  of  the  world  (Mk.  viii.  31  to  ix.  1),  Luke 
gives  the  Mustard  Seed  and  Leaven  in  another  connec- 
tion (xiii.  18-21),  and  it  may  be  that  Matthew  has  taken 
them  out  of  their  true  context  to  associate  them  with 
the  other  parables  of  his  group ;  yet  in  popular  teach- 
ing it  must  be  recognized  that  illustrations  are  most 
likely  to  be  repeated  in  different  situations.  On  the 
parables  see  Goebel,  The  Parables  of  Jesus  (1890),  Bruce, 
The  Parabolic  Teaching  of  Christy  3d  ed.  (1886),  Jtilicher, 


APPENDIX  297 

Die  Gleichnissreden  Jesu  (2  vols.  1899),  and  the  commen- 
taries on  the  gospels. 

58.  The  instructions  to  the  tivelve.  Mt.  ix.  36  to 
xi.  1.  X.  1,  5-14  corresponds  in  general  with  Mk.  vi. 
7-11 ;  Lk.  ix.  1-5.  The  similarity  is  closer,  however, 
between  x.  7-15  and  Lk.  x.  3-12  —  the  instructions  to 
the  seventy  (see  sect,  a  68).  The  rest  of  Mt.  x.  (16-42) 
is  paralleled  by  teachings  found  in  the  closing  discourses 
in  the  synoptic  gospels,  and  in  teachings  preserved  in 
the  section  peculiar  to  Luke  (ix.  51  to  xviii.  14.  See  SB 
sects.  88-92,  footnotes).  It  is  probable  that  here  the 
first  evangelist  has  made  a  group  of  instructions  to  dis- 
ciples gathered  from  all  parts  of  the  Lord's  teachings  ; 
such  a  collection  was  of  great  practical  value  in  the  early 
time  of  persecution. 

59.  Did  Jesus  twice  feed  the  multitudes?  All  the 
gospels  record  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  (Mt.  xiv. 
13-23;  Mk.  vi.  30-46;  Lk.  ix.  10-17;  Jn.  vi.  1-15), 
Matthew  (xv.  32-38)  and  Mark  (viii.  1-9)  give  also  the 
feeding  of  the  four  thousand.  The  similarities  are  so 
great  that  the  two  accounts  would  be  regarded  as  doub- 
lets if  they  occurred  in  different  gospels.  The  difficulty 
with  such  an  identification  is  chiefly  the  reference  which 
in  both  Matthew  (xvi.  9,  10)  and  Mark  (viii.  19,  20) 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  made  to  the  two  feedings.  The 
evangelists  clearly  distinguished  the  two.  In  view  of  this 
fact  the  differences  between  the  accounts  become  impor- 
tant. These  concern  the  occasion  of  the  two  miracles,  the 
number  fed,  the  nationality  of  the  multitudes  (compare 
Jn.  vi.  31  and  Mk.  vii.  31),  the  number  of  loaves  and  of 
baskets  of  broken  pieces  (the  name  for  basket  is  different 
in  the  two  cases,  and  is  preserved  consistently  in  Mk. 
viii.  19,  20;  Mt.  xvi.  9,  10).  See  GilbertLJ  259-262, 
Gould,  and  Swete,  on  Mk.  viii.  1-9;  Mever,  Alford,  on 
Mt.  XV.  32-38.  WeissLX  II.  376  f.,  BeysLJ  I.  279  f., 
WendtLJ  I.  42,  Holtzmann  Hand-conim.  1. 186  ff.,  identify 
the  accounts.     See  also  SandayHastBD  11.  629. 

60.  Did  Peter  tivice  co7if ess  faith  in  Jesus  as  Messiah? 


298  APPENDIX 

Synoptics  give  his  confession  at  Caasarea  Philippi  (Mk. 
viii.  27-30;  Mt.  xvi.  13-20;  Lk.  ix.  18-21).  John,  how- 
ever, gives  a  confession  earlier  at  Capernaum  (vi.  66-71). 
WeissLX  III.  53  identifies  the  two,  placing  that  in  John 
at  Csesarea  Philippi,  since  there  is  no  evidence  that  all 
of  the  long  discourse  of  Jn.  vi.  was  spoken  in  Caper- 
naum the  day  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand. 
This  may  be  correct,  yet  the  marked  recognition  which 
Jesus  gave  to  the  confession  at  Caesarea  Philippi  does 
not  demand  that  he  first  at  that  time  received  a  confes- 
sion of  his  disciples'  faith.  The  confession  in  Jn.  vi. 
68,  69  declared  that  the  twelve  were  not  shaken  in  their 
faith  by  the  recent  defection  of  many  disciples.  At 
Csesarea  Philippi  the  confession  was  made  after  the 
revulsion  of  popular  feeling  had  been  made  fully  evi- 
dent, and  after  the  twelve  had  had  time  for  reaction  of 
enthusiasm  consequent  upon  the  growing  coldness  of  the 
multitudes  and  active  opposition  of  the  leaders.  The  con- 
fession of  Csesarea  Philippi  holds  its  unique  significance, 
whether  or  not  Jn.  vi.  68  is  identified  with  it. 

61.  The  journey  to  Tabernacles  (Jn.  vii.).  Where  in 
the  synoptic  story  should  it  be  placed  ?  Lk.  ix.  51  ff. 
records  the  final  departure  from  Galilee.  The  journey 
of  Jn.  vii.  is  the  last  journey  from  Galilee  given  in 
John.  Yet  the  two  are  very  different.  In  John,  Jesus 
went  in  haste,  unpremeditatedly,  in  secret,  and  unaccom- 
panied, and  confronted  the  people  with  himself  unex- 
pectedly during  the  feast.  In  Luke  (Mk.  x.  1  and  Mt. 
xix.  1  are  so  general  that  they  give  no  aid)  he  advanced 
deliberately,  with  careful  plans,  announcing  his  coming 
in  advance,  accompained  by  many  disciples,  with  whom 
he  went  from  place  to  place,  arriving  in  Jerusalem 
long  after  he  had  set  out.  The  two  journej^s  cannot  be 
identified.  John  seems  to  keep  Jesus  in  the  south  after 
the  Tabernacles,  but  his  account  does  not  forbid  a  return 
to  Galilee  between  Tabernacles  and  Dedication  (x.  22). 
After  the  hurried  visit  to  Tabernacles,  Jesus  probably 
went  back  to  Galilee,  and  gathered  his  disciples   again 


APPENDIX  299 

for  the  final  journey  towards  his  cross  —  for  tlie  visit  to 
Jerusalem  had  given  fresh  evidence  of  the  kind  of  treat- 
ment he  must  expect  in  the  capital  (Jn.  vii.  32,  45-52 ; 
viii.  59).  See  AndLOL  369-379.  Andrews  suggests  that 
the  feast  occurred  before  the  withdrawal  to  Csesarea 
Philippi  (376) ;  this  is  possible,  but  it  seems  more  natural 
to  place  it  during  the  sojourn  in  Capernaum  after  the 
return  from  the  north  (Mk.  ix.  33-50).  See  SB,  sects. 
82-85. 

62.  On  the  phenomena  and  interpretation  of  Demoniac 
Possession  see  J.  L.  Nevius,  Demon  Possession  and  allied 
Themes ;  Conybeare,  Jew.  Quar.  Eev.  VIII.  (1896)  576- 
608,  IX.  (1896-7)  59-114,  444-470,  581-603;  J.  Weiss  in 
Redlencyklojjddie,^  Hauck-Herzog,  IV.  408-419;  Binet, 
Alterations  of  Personality,  325-356;  James,  Psychology, 
I.  373-400;  and  the  articles  on  Demons  in  EnB»ib  and 
HastBD. 


THE    JOURNEY    THROUGH    PEREA   TO    JERUSALEM 

63.  Eead  Sanday HastBD  II.  630-632;  see  GilbertLJ 
298-310;  WeissLX  III.  157-223;  KeimJK  V.  1-64; 
BeysLJ  I.  287-294,  II.  333-419;  AndLOL  365-420; 
EdersLJM  II.  126-860. 

64.  This  journey  began  sometime  between  Tabernacles 
and  Dedication  (October  and  December)  of  the  last  year 
of  Jesus'  life,  and  continued  until  the  arrival  in  Bethany 
six  days  before  the  last  Passover. 

^^.  Geographical  notes.  Perea  —  a  part  of  the  domain 
of  Antipas  —  was  the  Jewish  territory  E  of  the  Jordan. 
Its  northern  limit  seems  to  have  been  marked  by  Pella 
(Jos.  Wars,  iii.  3.  3)  or  Gadara  (Wars,  iv.  7.  3),  and 
its  'E  boundary  was  marked  by  Philadelphia  (Ant.  xx. 
1.  1)  ;  it  extended  S  to  the  domain  of  Aretas,  king  of 
Arabia.     The   population    was  mixed,    though  predomi- 


300  APPENDIX 

natingly  Jewish.  Cities  of  the  Decapolis,  however,  lay 
witliin  the  limits  of  Perea,  and  introduced  Greek  life 
and  ideas  to  the  people.  On  the  highlands  back  from, 
the  Jordan  it  was  a  fertile  and  well  populated  land. 
See  SmithHGHL  539  f.;  SchiirerJPTX  11.  i.  2-4. 

66.  On  Bethany  and  Jericho  see  BDs  and,  for  the 
latter,  SmithHGHL  266  ff. 

67.  Ephraim  (John  xi.  54)  is  generally  identified  with 
the  Ephron  of  II.  Chron.  xiii.  19  (Jos.  Wars,  iv.  9.  9). 
Eobinson  located  it  at  et  Taiyibeh,  4  m.  NE  of  Bethel, 
and  14  from  Jerusalem.  See  HastBD  1.  728;  SBD^ 
975. 

^'^.  General  questions.  The  mission  of  the  seventy. 
Luke  records  two  missions,  that  of  the  twelve  (ix.  1-6), 
and  that  of  the  seventy  (x.  1-24).  Many  regard  these 
as  doublets,  similar  to  the  two  feedings  in  Mark. 
So  WeissLX  IL  307  ff.,  BeysLJ  I.  275,  WendtLJ  1. 
84  f.  In  favor  of  this  conclusion  emphasis  is  given  to 
the  fact  that  in  Jewish  thought  seventy  symbolized  the 
nations  of  the  world  as  twelve  symbolized  Israel.  It  is 
suggested  that  in  his  search  for  full  records  Luke  came 
upon  an  account  of  the  mission  of  disciples  which  had 
already  been  modified  in  the  interests  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity, and  failing  to  recognize  its  identity  with  the 
account  of  the  mission  furnished  by  Mark,  he  added  it 
in  his  peculiar  section.  The  similarity  of  the  instruc- 
tions given  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  A 
second  sending  out  of  disciples  is  suitable  in  view  of  the 
entrance  into  a  region  hitherto  unvisited.  As  Dr.  Sanday 
has  remarked,  the  sayings  connected  by  Luke  with  this 
mission  bear  witness  to  the  authenticity  of  the  account. 
There  is  therefore  no  need  to  identify  the  two  mis- 
sions. See  particularly  SandayHastBD  II.  614,  also  Gil- 
bertLJ  226-230,  Plummer's  Comm.  on  Luhe,  269  ff.  Luke 
probably  gives  the  correct  place  for  the  thanksgiving,  self- 
declaration,  and  invitation  of  Jesus,  in  which  the  synop- 
tists  approach  most  nearly  to  the  thought  of  John  (Lk.  x. 
21,  22  ;  Mt.  xi.  25-30).    The  return  of  the  seventy  (Lk.  x. 


APPENDIX  301 

17-20)  followed   the  woes  addressed   to  the  unbelieving 
cities  (Lk.  x.  13-16 ;  Mt.  xi.  20-24). 

69.  The  destination  of  the  seventy.  It  is  customary  to 
think  of  them  as  sent  to  the  various  cities  of  Perea  (see 
AndLOL  381-383).  Were  it  not  for  the  words  "whither 
he  himself  was  about  to  come  '^  (Lk.  x.  1),  it  would  be 
natural  to  conclude  that  they  were  sent  E  to  Gerasa  and 
Philadelphia,  and  S  to  the  regions  of  the  Dead  Sea.  If 
John's  account  is  accepted,  Jesus  spent  not  a  little  time 
of  the  interval  between  his  departure  from  Galilee  and 
his  final  arrival  in  Bethany  in  and  near  Jerusalem.  It 
may  be  that  after  the  withdrawal  from  the  Dedication 
he  went  far  into  the  Perean  districts.  But  John  x.  40 
is  against  it.  The  question  must  be  left  unanswered. 
The  messengers  may  have  visited  places  in  all  parts  of 
Palestine. 


VI 

THE    CONTROVERSIES    OF    THE    LAST  WEEK 

70.  See  GilbertLJ  311-335;  WeissLX  III.  224-270; 
AndLOL  421-450;  KeimJN  V.  65-275;  BeysLJ  II.  422- 
434 ;  EdersLJM  11.  363-478  ;  SandayHastBD  II  632  f . 

71.  Tlie  supper  at  Bethany.  John  is  definite,  ^'six 
days  before  the  passover "  (xii.  1).  Synoptists  place  it 
after  the  day  of  controversy,  on  the  Wednesday  preced- 
ing the  Passover  (Mk.  xiv.  1,  3-9 ;  Mt.  xxvi.  2,  6-13). 
John  is  probably  correct.  The  rebuke  of  Judas  (Jn.  xii. 
4-8)  was  probably  associated  in  the  thought  of  the  dis- 
ciples with  his  later  treachery ;  consequently  the  synop- 
tists report  the  plot  of  Judas  and  this  supper  in  close 
connection. 

72.  The  MessioMiG  entry  into  Jerusalem  is  regarded  by 
Keville  as  a  surrender  by  Jesus  of  his  lofty  Messianic 
ideal  in  response  to  the  temptation  to    seek  a  popular 


302  APPENDIX 

following.  Keim  with  finer  insight  says,  "Even  if  it 
had  certainly  been  his  wish  to  bring  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  near  in  Jerusalem  quietly  and  gradually,  and  with 
a  healthy  mental  progress,  as  in  Galilee,  yet  ...  in  the 
face  of  the  irritability  of  his  opponents,  in  the  face  of  the 
powerful  means  at  their  disposal  of  crushing  him  .  .  .  there 
remained  but  one  chance,  —  reckless  publicity,  the  con- 
quest of  the  partially  prepared  nation  by  means,  not  of 
force,  but  of  idea.  .  .  .  He  came  staking  his  life  upon  the 
venture,  but  also  believing  that  God  must  finish  his  work 
through  life  or  death  "  (JN  V.  100  f.). 

73.  The  question  about  the  resurrection  was  probably 
a  familiar  Sadducean  problem  with  which  they  made 
merry  at  the  expense  of  the  scribes.  On  the  resurrection 
in  Jewish  thought  see  Charles,  Eschatology,  Hehreiv,  Jeiv- 
ish,  and  Christian,  by  index.  For  the  scepticism  of  the 
Sadducees  see  also  Ac.  xxiii.  8 ;  Jos.  Wars,  ii.  8.  14. 

74.  On  the  ^^ great  commandment^^  see  EdersLJM  IT. 
403  ff. 

75.  The  eschatological  discourse  presents  serious  exe- 
getical  difficulties.  Many  cut  the  knot  by  assuming  that 
Mk.  xiii.  and  ||s  contain  a  little  Jewish  apocalypse  written 
shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  has 
been  blended  with  genuine  predictions  of  Jesus  concern- 
ing his  second  coming.  See  Charles,  Eschatology,  323- 
329  ;  WendtLJ  I.  9-21  ;  HoltzmannmTH  I.  325  ff.  ;  and 
Bruce's  criticism  in  Expos.  Gk.  Test.  I.  287  f .,  also  San- 
day's  note  in  HastBD  II.  635  f. 

76.  On  the  relation  of  proselytes  to  Judaism  see 
Schurer  JPTX  II.  ii.  291-327.  The  synagogue  in  heathen 
lands  drew  to  itself  by  its  monotheism  and  its  pure  ethics 
the  finest  spirits  of  paganism.  But  few  of  them,  how- 
ever, submitted  to  circumcision,  and  became  thus  pros- 
elytes. Most  of  them  constituted  the  class  of  "them  that 
fear  God"  to  whom  Paul  constantly  appealed  in  his 
apostolic  mission.  The  Greeks  of  Jn.  xii.  20  ff.  were 
probably  circumcised  proselytes. 

77.  On  Judas  see   Plummer  in   HastBD   II.    796  ff. ; 


APPENDIX  303 

EdersLJM  II.  471-478;  WeissLX  III.  285-289  ;  AndLOL 

by  index.     De   Quincey's  essay  on  Judas  Iscariot  is  an 
elaborate  defence. 


VII 

THE    LAST    SUPPER 

78.  GilbertLJ  335-354;  WeissLX  III.  273-318;  Ed- 
ersLJM II.  479-532 ;  AndLOL  450-497 ;  Keim  JN  V.  275- 
343;  BeysLJ  II.  434-448;  SandayHastBD  II.  633-638. 

79.  The  day  of  the  last  sii]^per.  John  seems  clearly  to 
place  it  on  the  day  before  the  Passover  — 13  Nisan.  See 
xiii.  1,  29  ;  xviii.  28  ;  xix.  14,  31,  42.  Synoptists  as  clearly 
declare  that  the  supper  was  prepared  on  the  "  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread,  when  they  sacrificed  the  Passover " 
(Mk.  xiv.  12 ;  see  also  Lk.  xxii.  15)  ;  this  is  confirmed 
by  the  similarity  between  the  Passover  ritual  as  tra- 
dition has  preserved  it,  and  the  course  of  events  at  the 
supper.  Unless  interpretation  can  remove  the  contradic- 
tion, John  must  have  the  preference.  WeissLX  III. 
273-282,  BeysLJ  II.  390-399,  accept  John  and  correct 
the  synoptists  by  him ;  thus  the  supper  anticipated  the 
Passover.  Some  hold  that  John  can  be  interpreted 
harmoniously  with  synoptists,  and  be  shown  to  indicate 
that  the  supper  was  on  the  14th  Nisan.  So  EdersLJM 
IL  508,  5661,6121;  AndLOL  452-481;  GilbertLJ  335- 
339.  Others  believe  that  a  true  interpretation  of  synoptists 
shows  that  in  calling  the  last  supper  a  Passover  they 
correctly  represent  the  character,  but  misapprehend  the 
time,  of  the  meal.  Eor  this  argument  see  Muirhead, 
Times  of  Xt,  163-169,  and  read  SandayHastBD  II.  633- 
636  and  his  references.  The  debate  is  still  on,  but  the 
advantage  seems  to  be  with  those  who  assign  the  supper 
to  the  13th  and  the  crucifixion  to  the  14th  Nisan. 

80.  Did  Jesus  institute  a  meinorial  sacrament  ?  Read 
SandayHastBD  II.   636-638,  and  Thayer,  in  Jour.  Bib. 


304  APPENDIX 

Lit.   1899,   110-131;  see   also   McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age, 
68  ff.  note  ;  HoltzmannNtTh  I.  296-304. 

81.  The  Passover  ritual.  The  order  according  to  the 
rabbis  was  the  following  :  the  first  cup  of  wine  and  water 
was  taken  by  the  leader,  who  gave  thanks  over  it,  and 
then  it  was  shared  by  all  (compare  Lk.  xxii.  17)  ;  then 
the  head  of  the  company  washed  his  hands  —  Dr.  Edors- 
heim  connects  with  this  the  washing  of  the  disciples' 
feet,  which  changed  the  ceremony  from  an  act  of  dis- 
tinction into  one  of  humble  service  ;  after  this  the  dishes 
were  brought  on  the  table,  then  the  leader  dipped  some 
of  the  bitter  herbs  into  salt  water  or  vinegar,  spoke  a 
blessing,  and  partook  of  them,  then  handed  them  to  each 
of  the  company  ;  then  one  of  the  loaves  of  unleavened 
bread  was  broken  ;  after  this  a  second  cup  was  filled, 
and  before  it  was  drunk  the  significance  of  the  Passover 
was  explained  by  the  leader  in  reply  to  a  question  by 
the  youngest  of  the  company,  after  which  the  first  part 
of  the  Hallel  (Ps.  cxiii.,  cxiv.)  was  sung,  and  then  the 
cup  was  drunk;  then  followed  the  supper  itself  begin- 
ning with  "  the  sop,  ''  —  a  piece  of  the  paschal  lamb,  a 
piece  of  unleavened  bread,  and  bitter  herbs,  wrapped 
together  and  dipped  in  the  vinegar,  —  which  was  passed 
around  the  company  (compare  the  sop  which  Jesus  gave 
to  Judas)  ;  after  the  supper  came  a  third  cup,  known  as 
•'the  cup  of  blessing"  (see  I.  Cor.  x.  16);  then  followed 
grace  after  meat ;  then  a  fourth  cup,  in  connection  with 
which  the  remainder  of  the  Hallel  was  sung  (Ps.  cxv.  to 
cxviii.),  followed  by  certain  other  songs  and  prayers. 
See  EdersLJM  II.  496-512;  AndLOL  488-494. 

82.  The  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet.  John  (xiii.  1-11) 
sa3^s  this  occurred  "  during  supper "  (v.  2),  and  before 
the  designation  of  the  traitor.  Luke  (xxii.  23-30)  tells 
of  a  dispute  about  greatness  among  the  disciples.  This 
dispute  may  have  arisen  over  the  assignment  of  places 
at  table  (compare  Lk.  xiv.  7  ff. ;  Mk.  x.  33-45)  ;  if  so,  the 
reason  for  the  lesson  in  humility  is  apparent.  See 
AndLOL  482-484;  EdersLJM  11.  492-503. 


APPENDIX  305 

83.  Did  Jesus  ttcice  predict  Peter's  denials  ?  Mark  (xiv. 
26-31)  and  Matthew  (xxvi.  30-35)  place  the  prediction 
after  the  departure  for  Gethsemane ;  Luke  (xxii.  31-34) 
and  John  (xiii.  36-38),  during  the  supper.  AndLOL 
494  ff.  thinks  Peter  was  warned  twice,  EdersLJM.  II. 
535-537  holds  to  one  warning  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane. 
Antecedent  probability  favors  this  view. 

84.  Where  in  John  should  the  institution  of  the  sacra- 
ment he  placed?  Probably  after  the  departure  of  Judas 
(Mark  xiv.  21  f. ;  Matt.  xxvi.  26),  thus  not  before  xiii.  30. 
The  most  likely  place  is  between  verses  32  and  33. 
There  is  no  break  at  this  point,  and  it  remains  a  mystery 
why  John's  account  of  the  passion  omitted  this  central 
feature  of  early  Christian  belief  and  practice.  The 
omission  argues  for  rather  than  against  apostolic  author- 
ship, as  a  forger  would  not  have  ventured  to  disregard 
the  leading  service  of  the  church  in  an  account  of  the 
life  of  its  Lord.     See  Westcott,  Co7nm.  on  John,  188. 

85.  On  the  possible  disarrangement  of  the  last  dis- 
courses (xiii.  31  to  xvi.  33)  in  our  text  of  John  see  Spitta, 
Urchristentum,  I.  168-193;  Bacon,  Jour.  Bib.  Lit.  1894, 
64-76;  Burton,  Bib.  Wld.  1899  I.  32. 


VIII 

THE    SHADOW    OF    THE    CROSS 

^Q.  See  GilbertL J 354-384;  AndLOL497-588;  WeissLX 
III.  319-381 ;  BeysLJ  I.  390-432,  II.  448-473 ;  EdersLJM 
II.  533-620;  KeimJN  VI.  1-274;  SandayHastBD  II. 
632  f. 

87.  On  the  location  of  Gethsemane  and  Golgotha  see 
AndLOL  499  f.,  575-588;  and  HastBD  IL  164,  226  f. 

88.  On  the  progress  of  Jesus^  trial  hij  the  Jeivish  author- 
ities, see  AndLOL  505-516;  GilbertLJ  359-363.  The 
legality  of  the  trial  has  been  carefully  discussed  by  A.  T. 
lunes,  The  Trial  of  Jesus  Christ. 


306  APPENDIX 

89.  On  the  form  and  sequence  of  Peter's  denials,  see 
Westcott,  Comm.  on  John,  263-266 ;  AndLOL  516-521. 

90.  The  Words  from  the  Cross.  Matthew  (xxvii.  46) 
and  Mark  (xv.  34)  report  one;  Luke  (xxiii.  34?,  43,  46) 
adds  three,  omitting  the  one  found  in  Matthew  and  Mark ; 
John  adds  three  more  (xix.  26  f.,  28,  30).  Luke  xxiii.  34 
is  bracketed  by  Westcott  and  Hort  because  omitted  by  a 
very  important  group  of  MSS.  (^5''BD*)  and  some  early 
versions.  The  saying  is  almost  certainly  authentic, 
though  it  may  have  been  added  to  Luke  by  some  early 
copyist.  See  Westcott  and  Hort,  N.  T.  in  Greek,  II. 
Appendix,  68 ;  and  Plummer,  Comm.  on  Luke,  544  f . 


IX 

THE    RESURRECTIOX    AND    ASCEXSTON 

91.  Kead  SandayHastBD  II.  638-643;  see  KeimJN 
VI.  274-383,  for  a  still  valid  criticism  of  the  position 
of  KevilleJN  II.  428-478;  see  also  WeissLX  III.  382-409; 
BeysLJ  L  433-481,  II.  474-493;  BovonNTTh  I.  350- 
375 ;  GilbertL J  385-405 ;  Loof  s,  Die  Anferstehnngsberichte 
mid  ihr  Wert  ;  EdersLJM  II.  621-652;  AndLOL  589-639. 

92.  The  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark  (xvi.  9-20)  are 
omitted  by  the  oldest  MSS  (KB)  and  by  the  recently  dis- 
covered Sinaitic  Syriac,  as  well  as  by  other  versious  and 
fathers.  An  Armenian  MS.  has  been  found  ascribing  the 
section  to  one  Ariston,  or  Aristion,  a  second  century  elder, 
and  this  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  verses  is  widely 
accepted.  The  gospel  cannot  have  ended  with  the  words 
*'  for  they  were  afraid,"  but  no  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  condition  of  its  text  has  been  found.  For  a  recent 
hypothesis  see  Eohrbach,  Der  Schluss  des  Markusevangeli- 
ums  ;  on  Aristion  as  the  author,  see  Conybeare  in  Expos. 
IV.  viii.  (1893)  241,  IV.  x.  219,  V.  ii.  401 ;  see  also  San- 
day  HastBD  II.  638  f.,  Bruce,  Expos.  Gk.  Test.  I.  4541 
For  discussion  of  textual  evidence  see  Westcott  and  Hort, 


APPENDIX  307 

NT  in  Greeks  II.  Appendix,  28-51,  and  Burgon,  The  last 
twelve  verses  of  St.  Mark  (a  passionate  defence). 

Luke  xxiv.  51  is  omitted  by  J<*D  and  several  old  Latin 
MSS.     See  Plummer  and  Bruce  on  the  passage. 

93.  ^^  After  three  daysP  This  formula,  which  appears 
often  in  Mark,  is  altered  in  parallels  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
to  "  on  the  third  day  '^  (see  Concordance).  Jesus  died  on 
Friday,  lay  in  the  tomb  over  Saturday,  and  rose  very 
early  Sunday  morning.  Thus  he  spent  a  part  of  Friday, 
and  a  part  of  Sunday,  and  all  of  Saturday  in  the  grave. 
According  to  Jewish  reckoning  this  was  counted  three 
days. 

94.  Emmaus.  A  village  about  60  furlongs  from  Jeru- 
salem. Cannot  have  been  the  Emmaus  in  the  Shephelah, 
20  m.  from  Jerusalem.  May  have  been  el  Kubeibeh,  63 
furlongs  distant  on  the  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Lydda. 
See  AndLOL  617-619 ;  but  also  HastBD  I.  700. 


Part    IIL  — THE   MINISTER 


THE    FRIEND    OF    MEN 

95.  Read  Mathews,  The  Social  Teachings  of  Jesics, 
especially  132-174;  see  also  Robinson,  The  Saviour  in 
the  Newer  Light,  343  ff. 


II 

THE    TEACHER    WITH   AUTHORITY 

96.  See  WendtTJ  I.  106-151;  Stevens,  Theol.  of  the 
N  T.  1-16;  Beyschlag,  N  T.  Theolog?/,  I.  31-34.  In 
particular  on  the  Parables  see  references  in  sect,  a  56. 
On  the  content  of  Jesus'  teaching  see  WendtTJ  2  vols. ; 


308  APPENDIX 

Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu  ;  Stevens^  Theol.  of  the  N.  T,  17- 
244;  Beyschlag,  iV.  T.  TheoL  I.  27-299;  Mathews,  Social 
Teaching  of  Jesus;  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus; 
Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God. 


Ill 

JESUS'    KNOWLEDGE    OF    TRUTH 

97.    Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ  ;  GilbertR J  169  f ., 
240-242 ;  Schwartzkopf,  The  Frophecies  of  Jesus  Christ, 


IV 


98.  BaldSJ  125-282 ;  Stalker,  Christologij  of  Jesus ; 
HoltzmannNtTh  I.  234-304;  WendtTJ  II.  122-183; 
GilbertR  J  167-228;  Stevens,  Theol,  of  the  N.  T.  41-64, 
199-212.  On  the  title  "Son  of  Man''  see  particularly 
Dalman WJ  I.  191-219;  Charles,  Eschatology,  214  f. 
note;  against,  A.  Meyer,  Jesu  Muttersprache^  91-101, 
and  others.  See  also  HoltzmannmTh  I.  246-264.  On 
the  name  "Son  of  God,"  see  DalmanWJ  I.  219-237; 
Holtzmann  NtTh  I.  265-278;  Stalker,  Christologij,  86- 
123 ;  Gilbert,  as  above.  On  the  personal  religion  of 
Jesus  see  Burton,  Bib.  Wld.  1899,  II.  394-403.  For  the 
total  impression  of  the  character  of  Jesus,  read  Bushnell, 
The  Character  of  Jesus. 


INDEXES 


INDEX   OF   NAMES   AND   SUBJECTS 


[References  are  to  pages] 


jEnon,  site  of,  288. 

"After  three  days,"  307. 

Agrapha,  36,  U9,  281. 

Andrew,  of  Bethsaida,  92,  94,  118. 

Angels,  doctrine  of,  10. 

Annas,  191,  193,  194. 

Antipas,  4,  192. 

Apocalypse,  17  f.,  122,  124,  241. 

Apocryphal  gospels,  37,  281,  282. 

Archelaus,  4,  5. 

Aristion,  author  of  Mark  xvi.   9-20, 

204  f.,  306  f. 
Assumption  of  Moses,  75. 

Baptism  of  John,  see  John  the  Baptist. 
Baptism  of  Jesus,  83-86,  283  f. 
Barabbas,  174,  192. 
Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  92,  284. 
Bethany,  supper  at,  169,  301. 
Bethsaida,  site  of,  290. 
Books  of  reference,  273-277. 
Brethren  of  Jesus,  63  f.,  283. 

C^SAREA  Philippi,  4,  291 ;  confession 

at,  see  Peter. 
Caiaphas,  191,  193,  194. 
Cana  of  Galilee,  95,  222,  286. 
Cananeans  or  Zealots,  party  of,  11,  74. 
Capernaum,  site  of,  290. 
Census  under  Quirinius,  11,  52-55. 
Chorazin,  site  of,  290. 

Dalmaxutha,  291. 
Dalmanutha,  Books  of,  17  f.,  241,  254  f . 
Decapolis,  the,  140,  291. 
Dedication,  feast  of,  150,  154. 


Demoniac  possession,   131-133,   245- 

248,  299. 
Devout,  the,  13,  17. 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  38,  47,  281. 
Doublets,  44,  281. 
Draughts  of  fish,  miraculous,  293. 

Emmaus,  site  of,  307. 

Euoch,  Book  of,  241,  256-258. 

Ephraim,  site  of,  300. 

Essenes,  manner  of  living,  11-12 ;  their 
hope  of  Messiah,  16;  their  settle- 
ment, 73;  relation  to  John  the 
Baptist,  73,  77. 

Five  thousand,  the  feeding  of,  135  f., 
291. 

Gadarenes,  country  of,  247,  290  f . 
Genealogies  of  Jesus,  282. 
Gethsemane,  177,  186,  188  f .,  265,  305. 
Golgotha,  305. 

Herod  the  Great,  3 ;  began  to  rebuild 
temple,  49 ;  census  during  his  reign, 
54. 

Herod  Antipas,  4,  192. 

Herodians,  14,  173. 

James,  brother  of  John,  92,  94,  118. 

Jesus,  language  of,  19,  62,  279;  date 
of  birth,  52-56  ;  the  miraculous  con- 
ception, 58-61;  growth,  physical, 
intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual,  61- 
66;  his  brothers  and  sisters,  64;  visit 
to  Jerusalem  in  his  twelfth  year,  65' 


312 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  AND   SUBJECTS 


68 ;  life  in  Nazareth,  68  f . ;  his  bap- 
tiMii,  83-86;  his  temptation,  86-91; 
his  first  disciples,  92-95 ;  at  Cana, 
95;  his  social  friendliness,  96,  219  f.; 
the  cleansing  of  the  temple,  108- 
110;  talk  with  Nicodemus,  111; 
the  woman  of  Samaria,  112;  cure 
of  nobleman's  son,  113;  in  retire- 
ment in  Galilee,  113  f. ;  call  of  four 
disciples,  118;  popular  enthusiasm 
and  pharisaic  opposition,  119-121; 
his  withdrawals  and  injunctions  of 
silence,  122  ff . ;  blasphemy  of  the 
Pharisees,  r2'4;  the  reply  to  John's 
message,  125;  his  twofold  aim  in 
Galilee,  126 ;  his  method,  127  ;  the 
sermon  on  the  mount,  127  f. ;  the 
parables,  128  f.,  231  f .,  296  f . ;  instruc- 
tion of  the  twelve,  130,  297;  his 
mighty  works,  131  f.;  his  personal 
influence,  133;  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand,  135  f . ;  the  revulsion 
in  popular  feeling,  136 ;  the  contro- 
versy about  hand  washing,  139 ;  the 
withdrawal  to  the  north,  138;  the 
demand  for  a  sign,  139;  disciples 
warned  against  the  Pharisees,  139 ; 
the  question  at  Caisarea  Philippi, 
141  f.;  commendation  of  Peter,  143; 
announcement  of  approaching  death, 
144;  rebuke  of  Peter,  145 ;  the  trans- 
figuration, 146  f. ;  the  epileptic  boy, 
147;  rebuke  of  worldly  ambition, 
147  f.;  Jesus  and  his  brethren,  148; 
at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  148;  re- 
turn to  Galilee,  150;  final  departure 
from  Galilee,  154;  the  mission  of  the 
seventy,  158  ;  visit  to  the  feast  of 
Dedication,  159  ;  in  Perea,  160;  the 
summons  to  Bethany,  161  f. ;  official 
determination  to  get  rid  of  him, 
161;  at  Ephraim,  162;  question 
about  divorce,  154;  blessing  little 
children,  154;  the  rich  young  ruler, 
154;  request  of  Salome,  163;  Barti- 
meus,  163;  Zaccha^us,  163;  anoint- 
ing at  Bethany,  169  ;  the  Messianic 
entry,  170  f . ;  the  barren  fig-tree,  172 ; 
the  questions  of  the  leaders,  173  f.; 
counter  question,  175 ;  denunciation 


of  scribes,  175;  the  widow's  mites, 
176;  visit  of  the  Greeks,  176  f.;  the 
eschatological  discourse,  178;  bar- 
gain of  Judas,  169,  178  f.;  the  last 
supper,  181-184  ;  dispute  and  foot 
washing,  184;  withdrawal  of  Judas, 
184;  prediction  of  Peter's  denials, 
185 ;  discourse  and  prayer,  185-187 ; 
Gethsemane,  188-190;  betrayal  and 
arrest,  190  f . ;  trial  by  Jews,  191  f . ; 
trial  by  Pilate,  192-194 ;  crucifixion, 
195-198;  burial  of  Jesus,  199;  the 
resurrection,  201-210;  the  ascension, 
214  f . ;  Jesus'  attitude  to  common 
life,  219-223 ;  his  hunger  for  sj'm- 
pathy,  223;  Jesus  as  a  teacher, 
226  f.;  his  attitude  to  Old  Testa- 
ment, 227-229;  his  confidence  in 
men,  230  f . ;  his  use  of  illustration, 
231-233;  his  alertness  of  mind,  234; 
his  leading  ideas,  235  ff. ;  his  super- 
natural knowledge,  239-244;  his 
confession  of  ignorance,  243;  his 
kinship  with  men,  244  f . ;  treatment 
of  demoniac  possession,  245-248;  his 
certainty  of  his  Messianic  call,  249- 
254;  his  adoption  of  Messianic 
titles,  254-264;  his  consciousness  of 
dependence  on  God,  264-266;  the 
problem  of  Jesus,  267-269. 

John,  Gospel  of,  32-36,  40  f .,  181,  280, 
305. 

John  the  Baptist,  70-81;  notice  by 
Josephus,  71  f .,  279  f . ;  his  idea  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  73;  his  rela- 
tion to  current  thought,  73-76 ;  his 
baptism,  77  f.,  83;  baptism  of  Jesus, 
82-84;  the  embassy  from  the  priests, 
92;  testimony — "the  Lamb  of 
God,"  93,  286;  baptizing  at  ^non, 
112;  his  self-effacing  witness  to 
Jesus,  79,  112;  hostility  of  the 
Pharisees,  113,  289;  arrest  by  Anti- 
pas,  71  f.,  113  ;  his  message  to  Jesus, 
125;  death  in  prison,  134  f.;  his 
significance,  79-81,  226;  the  disci- 
ples of  John,  112,  283;  literature 
about  John,  283. 

John,  son  of  Zebedee,  36,  92,  94,  118, 
193.  269. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  AND   SUBJECTS 


313 


John  of  Gischala,  121. 

Joseph  of  Arimathea,  182,  199. 

Josephus,  22  ;  notice  of  John  the  Bap- 
tii>t,  71,  279  f. 

Judas  of  Galilee,  11,  121. 

Judas  the  betrayer,  169,  181,  302;  the 
bargain,  178;  his  selection  as  an 
apostle,  179;  his  criticism  of  Marj 
at  Bethany,  179;  his  kiss,  190;  his 
remorse,  179. 

Judea,  province  of,  6  f. 

Kingdom  of  God,  68,  86,  90, 173, 190, 
231,  232,  235  ft.,  238,  241. 

Language  used  by  Jesus,  19,  62, 279. 

Last  supper,  the,  181-187,  303-305. 

Lawyers,  see  Scribes. 

Length  of  Jesus'  rainistr}^  45-49,  282. 

Literature  of  the  Jews,  18  f .,  279. 

"  Logia,"  ascribed  to  Matthew,  32,  42, 

158. 
Luke,  Gospel  of,  26  f.,  31  f.,  280. 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  25  f .,  27,  29,  32,  40, 

42,  280,  294  f . ;  last  twelve  verses  of, 

204  f.,  306  f. 
Mary  Magdalene,  134,  208. 
Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  59 ;  had 

other  children,  60,  63  f.,  283. 
Matthew,  Gospel  of,  23  ff.,   27,  30  f., 

32,  280. 
Messianic  entry  into  Jerusalem,  170, 

301  f. 
Messianic  hope,  the,  16-18,  87,  175, 

279. 
Miracles  of  Jesus,  96,  267,  286  f . 
Miraculous  birth,  the,  57-61,  282. 
Mission  of  the  twelve,  130,  297. 
Mission  of  the  seventy,  158,  300  f. 

Nathanael,  of  Cana,  92,  94,  286. 
Nazareth,  the  view  from,  65  f . ;  rejec- 
tion at,  292. 
Nicodemus,  111,  199. 

Papias,  22,  29,  34,  47,  102,  281. 
Parables  of  Jesus,  128  f.,  231  f.,  296  f. 
Passover  the,  181,  187,  304. 
Paul,  21,  36,  201,  206,  268. 


Pentateuch,  Jesus'  references  to,  244. 

Perea,  104,  153  f.,  158,  299  f. 

Peter,  29,  34,  92,  94,  118,  185,  193, 
305,  306 ;  confession  of,  136,  142  ff ., 
297  f. 

Pharisees,  the,  8-10;  attitude  to  John 
the  Baptist,  82,  113,  289;  their 
blasphemy,  124, 156  ;  question  about 
divorce,  154;  about  tribute,  173, 
about  the  great  commandment, 
174,  302. 

Philip  of  Bethsaida,  92,  94,  176. 

Philip  the  tetrarch,  4. 

Pliny  the  younger,  21. 

Pontius  Pilate,  5,  192,  195. 

Priests,  the,  7  f.,  107;  and  the  temple 
market,  108. 

Proselytes,  78,  176,  302. 

Psalms,  Jesus'  use  of  the,  244. 

Psalms  of  Solomon,  18,  261. 

Publicans,  6,  72,  222. 

QuiRiNius,  census  under,  52-55. 

Religion  of  Jesus,  264  ff.,  308. 
Resurrection,  pharisaic  doctrine  of,  10, 
241 ;  Sadducean  rejection  of  10,  174. 

Sadducees,  the,  8,  16,  82;  question 
about  the  resurrection,  174,  303; 
attitude  towards  Jesus,  193. 

Samaria,  6  f . ;  Jesus'  journev  through, 
112. 

Samaritans,  how  regarded,  14. 

Sauhedrin,  the  great,  at  Jerusalem,  7, 
13,  192. 

Scribes,  their  business,  9 ;  power  in 
the  sanhedrin,  13;  their  influence 
over  the  religious  lite,  14;  their  hope 
of  a  Messiah,  16 ;  their  washings, 
78 ;  chief  of  them  at  Jerusalem,  107 ; 
their  pride  of  learning  and  their 
bondage  to  tradition,  226. 

Sermon  on  the  mount,  127,  290,  295  f. 

Signs,  essential  marks  of  the  Messiah, 
95,  131. 

Soldiers  in  Palestine,  6,  72,  191. 

Son  of  Man,  the,  124  f.,  130  f.,  254- 
260,  208. 


314 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  AND   SUBJECTS 


Son  of  God,  the,  260-264,  308. 
Star  of  the  wise  men,  56. 
Suetonius,  21. 
Sychar,  site  of,  288. 
Synagogue,  the,  14. 
Synoptic  gospels,  28. 
Synoptic  problem,  27-32,  279  f. 

Tabernacles,  feast  of,  148, 150,  298  f. 
Tacitus,  3,  21,  54. 
Tatiau,  23,  38,  47,  281. 
Taxes,  Roman,  in  Judea,  6. 
Temple  at  Jerusalem,  107 ;  market  in, 
107  ;  cleansing  of,  107,  288  f. 


Temptation  of  Jesus,  86-91,  145,  284; 

locality  of,  285 ;  source  of  the  record, 

90,  285. 
Tertullian,  45,  53. 
Thomas,  208. 
Tiberius,  1,  21,  50. 
Traditions  of  the  elders,  9,  15  f .,  68, 

74,  139. 
Transfiguration,  the,  146  f.,  292. 
Trial  of  Jesus,  the,  191-195,  305. 

Words  from  the  cross,  196  it.,  306. 
Zealots,  the,  11,  74,  122, 124. 


INDEX   OF    SCRIPTURE   REFERENCES 


Ex. 

Page 

EZEK. 

^^?? 

iv.  22 

261 

78 

ii.  1  

254 

xix.lO 

xxxiii.  10-20....... 

240 

xxiv.  1  11 

183 

xxxvi.  25-27  

Dan. 

vi.  10.. 

vii.  1-14 

vii.  13f 

Ill 

107 

254 

255 

Lev. 

xii.8 

xxiii.  5-11 

61 

47 

Num. 

viii.  17  ... 

254 

xxiii.  19 

25i 

i.  10  

Hos. 

261 

Deut. 

vi.  4-9  

62 

Joel. 

viii  3.                .  ... 

88 

ii.  1-14  ... 
vi.  8  

MiCAH. 

76 

70 

xviii.  15 

xxi.  23  

92 

196 

I.  Sam. 

Matt. 

ii.  26  

61 

i.  1  to  iv. 
ii.  1,2... 

17  

23 

52 

I.  Kings. 

iii.  7 

74 

xvii.  1 .  

72 

iii.  9  

iu.  10-12 

78 

82 

II.  Kings 

■- 

iii.  11 

77 

i.  8 

72 

iii.  14 

82 

xvii.  24-41 

14 

iii.  15 

iii.  16 

83 

285 

Ps. 

iv.  4,  7,  10 

228 

ii.  7 

261 

iv.  7  

89 

viii.  4 

254 

iv.  8  

90 

xxii 

196 

iv.  10  .... 

....90,145 

Ixxx. 17  

254 

iv.  12    ... 

.  101,  102,  106,  289  1 

Ixxxii.  6. 

261 

iv.  12-17 

24,  39,  115 

ciu.  13  

262 

iv.  12  to  xviii.  35 

102 

cxiii.,  cxiv 

304 

iv.  13,... 

106 

cxv.  to  ex  viii. 

185,  304 

iv.  13-16 

115 

iv.  17.... 

118 

ISA. 

iv.  18-22 

...  106,  115 

i.  16 

76 

iv.  18  to  xvi.  20  . 

24 

vi.  5 

267 

iv.  23..  . 

115 

xi.  2  

85 

iv.  23-25 

115 

XXXV.  5f 

126 

V.  1  

290 

xUi.  1  

85 

V.  3-12  .. 

296 

U.  12 

254 

V.  13-16 

296 

liii 

....96,239 
93 

V.  17..  .. 

8.3,  228 

liii.  7 

V.  17-19 

296 

Iviu 

76 

V.  18 

238 

Ixi.  If 

45,  85,  126 

V.  20 

296 

Ixiii    Ifi 

262 

V.  21-48 
V.  25  f.  .. 

...  228,296 

295 

Jee. 

V.  29  f .  . 

295 

xxxi.  31-^  

.111,183 

V.  32... 

295 

Page 

V.  38,  39... 250 

V.  45   244 

vi.  1-6  84 

vi.  1-18 64,  296 

\i.  2-4  176 

vi.  9-15 42,117,295 

vi.  19-34 103,  295 

vi.  24.. 179 

vi.  25-34  42 

vii.  1-6 296 

vii.  7-11  117,295 

vii.  13  f 295 

vii.  15-21 296 

vii.  21 262 

vii.  21-27 238 

vii.  22f 295 

vii.  24-27 296 

vii.  28,  29 226,249 

viii.  2^  115 

viii.  5 7 

viii.  5,  8, 43 

viii.  5-13  ...41,115.288,289 

viii.  10 243 

viii.  10-12 24 

viii.  14-17 115 

viii.  18,23-27 116 

viii.  19-22 153 

viii.  20  259 

viii.  28-34 116 

ix.  1,  18-26 116 

ix.  2-8  115 

ix.  9-13  115 

ix.  14-17 115 

ix.  27-34  116 

ix.  35 116 

ix.  36toxi.  1  ...116,118,297 

X.  1,5-14  297 

X.  5f 130 

X.  7-15 297 

X.  16-42  297 

x.  32 262 

xi.  2-6 251 

xi.  2-19 41,  116 

xi.4-6 131 

xi.  11 80 

xi.  18  f 259 

xi.  19 96,220,250 

xi.  20-24  301 

xi,  20-30  153 

xi.  25-30  300 

xi.  27  252,263 

xi.  28-30  160 


316 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   REFERENCES 


Page 

xii.  1-8 115 

xii.  9-14 115 

xii.  12  227 

xii.  15-21 115 

xii.  22-45   116,  156 

xii.  28 85,  248 

xii.  46-50  116 

xii.  50 145 

xiii.  1-53  116,296 

xiii.  24-30  296 

xiii.  31-33 44,  117 

xiii.  40-43,49,50  296 

xiii.  54-58  110,  292 

xiii.  55   ., 01,  63 

xiv.  1-12  116 

xiv.  1  toxxviii.  20  28 

xiv.  13-23 39,  116,  297 

xiv.  19  46 

xiv.  24-36  110 

XV.  1 34 

XV.  1-20 116 

XV.  13f 150 

XV.  21-28 116 

XV.  21-31 140 

XV.  22 254 

XV.  24 130 

XV.  29-31 117 

XV.  32-38 117,  297 

XV.  39  291 

XV.  39toxvi.  12 117 

xvi.  9f 297 

xvi.  13-20 94,  117,  298 

xvi.  16  203 

xvi.  lOff 142 

xvi.  17 142,  224,262 

xvi.  21  118,  239 

xvi.  21-28 117 

xvi.  21  to  xxviii.  20 24 

xvi.  23 239 

xvii.  1-13 117 

xvii.  10-13 193 

xvii.  14-20 117 

xvii.  22-23 117 

xvii.  24-27  117,  139 

xviii.  1-35.  117,  148 

xviii.  4 220 

x^iji.  12-14  44 

xix.  If 39,153,154,298 

xix.  1  to  XX.  34 104 

xix.  3-9 228 

xix.  3-12  153 

xix.  13-15 153 

xix.  16  to  XX.  16 1.53 

XX.  17-19 153 

XX.  20-28 153 

XX.  29-34  153 

xxi.  1-11  166 

xxi.  1  to  xxvii.  66 104 

xxi.  1  to  xxviii.  20  .39 

xxi.  4f 170 

xxi.  9-15  2,54 

xxi.  14-16 172 

xxi.  17  166 

xxi.  18-19,12-17  166 

xxi.  20-23  166 

xxi.  23-27 166 

xxi.  28  to  xxii.  14  ..  166,  173 


Page 

xxi.  33-46 25,  252 

xxii.  1-14 252 

xxii.  15-22 166 

xxii.  23-33 166 

xxii.  34-40  166,  238 

xxu.  41-46 166 

xxiii.  1-39  166 

xxiii.  2 13 

xxiii.  24  233 

xxiii.  37-39 34,  106 

xxiv.  1  to  xxvi.  2  167 

xxiv.  0-13  166 

XXV 178 

XXV.  31-46 237 

XXV.  40  221 

xxvi.  If.    .  147 

xx\d.  2,  C-13 '    .    .    301 

xxvi.  3-5,  14-16  .    167 

xxvi.  17-13  ...  107 

xx\i.  20  181 

xxvi.  25  200 

xxvi.  20 305 

xxvi.  SO,  36^6  ,     ...     107 

xxvi.  30-35  305 

xxvi.  47-56  167 

xxvi.  57  to  xxvii.  10  107 

xxvi.  03  f 263 

xxvii.  11-31 167 

xxvii.  32-56 167 

xxvii.  43  261 

xxvii.  46  197,  306 

xxvii.  50  285 

xxvii.  57 34 

xxvii.  57-61 167 

xxvii.  62-06 167 

xxviii.  1-8 201 

xxviii.  9,  10 201 

xxviii.  11-15  201 

xxviii.  16-20  201,  204 

xxviii.  18-20 25 


Mark. 


1-13, 

3 

4 

7f.  ., 
10... 


26 

79 

77 

93 

84 

,  11  68,84,261 

14 101,  102,  100,  289 

14f 39,  115 

14toix.  50 26,  102 

16-20 115 

21-34 115 

24 254 

27  249 

35 265 

35-39 253 

35^5 115 

.  1-12 47,115,230,  294 

.  1-17 48 

.ltoiii.6  47,48,250,  204  f. 

.5 239 

.6f 121 

.  10 28,256,  259 

.  10,  28  and  ||s 250 

.12 25 

.13-17 47,115,2^ 


Page 

ii.  15-17 96 

ii.  16 47,121 

ii.  18-22 26,47,115 

ii.  20 239 

ii.  23 47 

ii.  23-28 115,  229,  294  f. 

ii.  25-27 228 

ii.  27 257 

ii.  44 253 

iii.  1-6 20,115,295 

iii.  7-12 115 

iii.  11 261 

iii.  13-19» 115,295 

iii.  17,  41 25 

iii.  19-30 40,42,  110 

iii.  21,31-35 59,97 

iii.  22  34,  121 

iii.  22-30  156 

iii.  28-20 251 

iii.  31-35 59,97,  116 

iv.  1-34 116,232,290 

iv.  3  64 

iv.  12 129 

iv.  13 129 

iv.  26-29  296 

iv.  35-41  116 

V.  1  290 

V.  1-20 116 

V.  7  261 

V.  11-13 247 

V.  21^3 116 

V.  30-34 243 

V.  41 20 

vi.  1-6 43,116,292 

vi.  2f 220 

vi.  6b 116 

vi.  7-11 297 

vi.  7-13  116,147 

▼i.  14-29  116 

vi.  15 290 

vi.  30-34 47 

vi.  30-40 39,40,116,297 

vi.  39 46 

vi.  47-56 116 

vii.  1 34 

vii.  1-23  48, 116, 121, 139,  250 

vii.  6-13 233 

vii.  8-13 10 

vii.  10 244 

vii.  13 251 

vii.  14-23 238 

vii.  15 227 

\ni.  19 139,228 

vii.  24-30 116 

vii.  27 140 

vii.  29f 289 

vii.  31  291 

vii.  31-37 117,140 

vii.  34 20 

vii.  37 25 

viii.  If 141 

viii.  1-9 117,297 

viii.  10 291 

viii.  10-21 117 

viii.  11  96 

viii.  11-13 139 

viii.  14f 139 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE  REFERENCES 


317 


Page 

viii.  19f '297 

viii.  22-26 117 

viii.  27-30 117,  141,298 

viii.  29  254 

viii.  31 168,204,250,259 

viii.  31-33 87,239 

viii.  31  to  ix.  1 117,296 

viii.  32f 93 

viii.  ^f 147 

viii.  34toix.  1 146 

viii.  38  256,259 

ix.  1  242 

ix.  2  292 

ix.  2-13 117 

ix.  6  28 

ix.  9  147 

ix.  10.. 203 

ix.  14-29 117,  147 

ix.  19 224 

ix.  29 205 

ix.  30-32  117,147 

ix.  31  204 

ix.  33-50  117,299 

ix.  35-37 234 

ix.  43-47 295 

X.  1  ...39,104,153,  154,298 

X.  Itoxvi.  8 26 

X.  2-12  153,154,  160 

X.  5f 244 

X.  11 295 

X.  13-16  153,154,160 

X.  13-52 104 

X.  17-31  153,155,  160 

X.  18 266 

X.  19 229 

X.  25 233 

X.  32-34 147,153,155,162 

X.  34 204 

X.  35-45  ...  153,  155,  103,  165, 
184,  230,  304 

X.  40 243 

X.  42^5 259 

X.  45 241 

X.  46 162 

X.  46-52 153 

X.  47  f 254 

X.  48  163 

xi.  1-11  166 

xi.  1  toxv.  47 104 

xi.  Itoxvi.  8  [20] 39 

xi.  2f 34 

xi.  2-6 112 

xi.  8-10 162 

xi.  9f 170 

xi.  12-14,15-18 166 

xi.  12-14,20-25 172 

xi.  14-36 42 

xi.  15-19  43,288 

xi.  17 108 

xi.  19 166 

xi.  20-27 166 

xi.  25 295 

xi.  27-33 166 

xi.  29-33. 173 

xii.  1-12 166 

xii.  13-17  166,  173 

xii.  16 227 


Page 

xii.  18-27 166,  174 

xii.  24-27 228 

xii.  27  186 

xii.  28-S4 106,  174 

xii.  35-37 16(;,  245 

xii.  38-40 166 

xii.  41-44. 166 

xiii.  and  ||s 178,  241,  302 

xiii.  1-37 167 

xiu.  24-27 238 

xiii.  32 243,247,252,  263 

xiv.  If.,  lOf 167 

xiv.  3 169 

xiv.  3-9 166,  301 

xiv.  3-11  169 

xiv.  8 109 

xiv.  12 303 

xiv.  12-16 112 

xiv.  12-26 167 

xiv.  14 34 

xiv.  17 181 

xiv.  18-21  184 

xiv.  20 185 

xiv.  21 180 

xiv.  26,  32-12 167 

xiv.  26-31 305 

xiv.  33 f... 186 

xiv.  34 145 

xiv.  36 20,  189,239,  265 

xiv.  43-52 167 

xiv.  45 190 

xiv.  47 182 

xiv.  50  190 

xiv.  53  to  XV.  1* 167 

xiv.  61 254,  261 

xiv.  61  f 263 

xiv.  61-64 191 

xiv.  62  85,  258 

xiv.  66-72 93 

XV.  1 192 

XV.  1-20 167 

XV.  2 254 

XV.  6-15 192 

XV.  21. 182,  195 

XV.  21-41 167 

XV.  22 305 

XV.  34 20,  197,  306 

XV.  42  182 

XV.  42-47 167 

XV.  43 34 

XV.  46.. 182 

xvi.  1 202 

xvi.  1-8 201 

xvi.  Of 209 

xvi.  [9-20]  204  f.,  306 

xvi.  [0-11]  201 

xvi.  [12f.]    201 

xvi.  (14] 201 

xvi.  [15-18] 201 

xvi.  [19f.]  201 

Luke. 

i,  1-4 26,42 

i.  3 41 

i.  5 52 

i.  36 82 

i.  46-55 60 


Page 

i.  68-79 60 

i.  80  61 

ii.  If 52 

ii.  8    56 

ii.  19-51 59 

li.  24  61 

ii.  40-52 61 

ii.  41 62,107 

ii.  48 97 

ii.  49 07,262 

ii.  52 63,09 

iii.  If 45,49,52 

iii.  13f 74 

iii.  15 94 

iii.  21 64,82,84,265 

iii.  23 52 

iv.  5  90 

iv.  13 87,146 

iv.  14  101,  102,  289 

iv.  14,15  39,  115,292 

iv.  14toix.  50 26,  102 

iv.  16 62 

iv.  16-19  63 

iv.  16-30 43,116,292 

iv.  23 292 

iv.  31 106,115 

iv.  31^1 115 

iv.  42-44 115 

V.  1-11 115,293 

V.  4-11  43 

V.  12-16 115 

V.  17  34 

V.  17-26 115 

V.  24 28 

V.  27-32 115 

V.  33-39 115 

>-i.  1-5 115 

vi.  6-11 115 

vi.  12  84,265,290 

vi.  12-19 115,295 

vi.  17 290 

vi.  20 222 

vi.  20tovii.  1  115,295 

vi.  20-26  296 

vi.  27-42  296 

vi.  43-46 296 

vi.  47^9 296 

vii.  1-10....  41,  115,288,289 

vii.  2-5 7 

vii.  7 43 

vii.  11-17 42,   116 

vii.  18-35 41,  116 

vii.  36-50 42,  110,224 

vii.  47 239 

viii.  1-3 116 

viii.  4-18 116,290 

viii.  19-21 116 

viii.  22-25 116 

viii.  26 290 

viii.  26-39 116 

viii.  40-56 116 

ix.  1-6 116,  297,300 

ix.  7-9  116 

ix.  10-17 39,  116,297 

ix.  11 135 

ix.  18 265 

ix.  18-21 117,298 


318 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  REFERENCES 


Page 

ix.  22-27  117 

ix.  28f 84,146 

ix.  28-36 117 

ix.  29 265 

ix.31 146 

ix.  37-43a 117 

ix.  43''-45 117 

ix. 46-50 117 

ix.  51  39,  157 

ix.  51ff 158,  298 

ix.  51-62  153 

ix.  51  to  xviii.  14  40,42, 

104,  154,  156 

ix.  51  to  xix.  27 26 

ix.  57-62  156 

X.  1  158,301 

X.  3-12 297 

X.  1-24 153,  300 

X.  13-16 301 

X.  17-20 301 

X.  17-24 IGO 

X.  18 248 

X.  22 252,263,  300 

X.  25-37  ....  34,  153,  159,  227 

X.  28-37 159 

X.  38-42 34,111,  153 

xi.  1 42,265 

xi.  1-4 42,295 

xi.   1-13 117 

xi.  9-13 295 

xi.  14-36 40,116,  156 

xi.  34-36  295 

xi.  37-52  156 

xi.  37-54 154,  164 

xii.  1-12 156 

xii.  1-59 154,164,165 

xii.  13-21  117 

xii.  22-31    42 

xii.  22-34 103,156,295 

xii.  49-53  ,. 165 

xii.  58  f 295 

xiii.  1-9  154,  161,  164 

xiii.  10-17  117 

xiii.  18-21 44,117,296 

xiii.  22 ..  157 

xiii.  22-30 153,  164 

xiii.  24 295 

xiii.  31  f 171,  193 

xiii.  31-35 153,  168 

xiii.  32 5 

xiii.  34  f 34,  106,224 

xiii.  35 252 

xiv.  1-24 117 

xiv.  7i¥ 304 

xlv.  15-24 161 

xiv.  25-35 154,156,164, 

165 

xiv.  26  233 

XV.  If 96 

XV.  Itoxvi.  31 117 

XV.  4-7 44 

XV.  7  233 

XV.  11-32 232 

xvi.  13  295 

xvi.  22  247 

xvi.  31  229 

xvii.  1-4 117 


Page 

xvii.  11  157 

xvii.  11-19 153 

xvii.  20-37 154 

xviii.  1-8 154,  164 

xviii.  9-14 154,  159 

xviii.  15-17  153 

xviii.  15  to  xix.  28 104 

xviii.  18-30 153 

xviii.  31-34 153 

xviu.  34  203 

xviii.  35-43  153 

xvui.  35  to  xix.  28  ...  155,  164 

xix.  1-10  154 

xix.  11-28  154,163 

xix.  28  to  xxiv.  53 27 

xix.  29-44 166 

xix.  29  to  xxiii.  56 104 

xix.  29  to  xxiv.  53 39 

xix.  37-40 162 

xix.  39  170 

xix.  41-44 170 

xix.  45  f 289 

xix.  45M7f 166 

xix.  47  172 

XX.  1  166 

XX.  1-8 166 

XX.  9-19 166 

XX.  20-26   166 

XX.  27-40   166 

XX.  41-44  166 

XX.  45-47   166 

xxi.  1-4   106 

xxi.  5-38   167 

xxi.  37,  38 166 

xxii.  1-6    167 

xxii.  7-30 167 

xxii.  14 181 

xxii.  15 181,183,  303 

xxii.  17 304 

xxii.  17-20 185 

xxii.  19 184 

xxii.  23-30    304 

xxii.  28  87 

xxii.  31-34 185,305 

xxii.  39-46   167 

xxii.  47-53    167 

xxii.  54-71    167 

xxii.  61  f 193 

xxii.  66-71    192 

xxii.  70  263 

xxiii.  If 192 

xxiii.  1-25 167 

xxiii.  4 192 

xxiii.  5-12 192 

xxiii.  13-16 192 

xxiii.  16-24 192 

xxiii.  26-49 167 

xxiii.  27-31 195 

xxiii.  34  197,306,307 

xxiii.  43  197,  306 

xxiii.  46...  64,  197,  285,306 

xxiii.  50-56 167 

xxiii.  56 182 

xxiv.  1-12 201 

xxiv.  12 205 

xxiv.  13-35 201 

xxiv.  21   200,  203 


Page 

xxiv.  36-43 201 

xxiv.  41-^3 213 

xxiv.  44-53 201 

xxiv.  50 205 

xxiv.  51 214,307 

John. 

i.  14  58,269 

i.  19toiv.  42 40,  101 

i.  25  78 

i.  26f 93 

i.  28  92,284 

i.  29  93 

i.  29-36 80 

i.  30-34 93 

i.  31   82 

i.  32-34 84 

i.  35f 93 

i.  38  20,226 

i.  40  f.,  43-45  92 

i.  41-45 142 

i.  42-47  239 

i.  44 290 

1.  49  ...94,142,254,261,263 

1.51  95 

ii.  3-5 97 

ii.  11  222 

ii.  12  97 

ii.  13  46 

ii.  13-22  43,106,288 

ii.  16  262 

ii.  20  49 

u.  22  96 

ii.  23  to  iii.  15 106 

ii.  25  68,141,234,239 

iii.  2  226 

iii.  16-21,  30-36 32 

iii.  22-30  106 

iii.  24 46,101 

iii.  23 288 

iii.  24,35 113 

iii.  30 SO 

iii.  34  85,86 

iv.  1-3  113 

iv.  1-3,  44  112 

iv.  1-4  289 

iv.  1-42 106 

iv.  1^5 102 

iv.  21-24  109 

iv.  25 14 

iv.  26 254 

iv.  30 95 

iv.  34 265 

iv.  35 107,288,293 

iv.  42  ..  40 

iv.  43-45  39,  106,289 

iv.  46-54...  102, 106,115,289 
V  1  40,  48,  293 

v.  1-9  32 

v.  1-47  102,  115 

v.  17  262 

V.  19 264 

V.  25 263 

V.  30 265 

V.  39 229 

vi.  1-15 39,  116 

vi.  1-71  102 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   REFERENCES 


319 


Page 

vi.  4 46,138,293 

vi.  14 26 

vi.  14f 119 

vi.  15 89,  120,135,170 

vi.  16-21   116 

vi.  22-71  116 

vi.  30-32  87 

vi.  38 189,265 

vi.  64 178,  180 

vi.  66 136 

vi.  67 225 

vi.  67-71 298 

vi.  68  81,123 

vi.  68f 142 

vi.  69 254 

vii.  1-10 39,298 

vii.  1-52  117 

vii.  Itoviii.  59 103,  149 

vii.  2 138 

vii.  2-5  148 

vii.  5  64 

vii.  10 150 

vii.  15 235 

vii.  22 244 

vii.  23 32 

vii.  24 227 

vii.  25,  32 160 

vii.  31  95 

vii.  32 299 

vii.  36 149 

vii.  40 254 

vii.  45-52 299 

vii.  49 13,220 

vii.  50-62 Ill 

vii.  53  to  viii.  11 37,117, 

149,  157 

viii.  12-59 117 

viii.  14  248 

viii.  15  157 

viii.  46 83,  266 

viii.  59 160,299 

ix.  Itox.  39 153 

ix.  1  toxi.  57  104 

ix.  10  158,  159 

ix.  35 263 

ix.  35-38  156 

X.  11-18 159 

X.  18 89 

X.  21 159 

X.  22  150,155,  298 

X.  22,  40-42 158 

X.  24-39 159 

X.  25 161,  262 

X.  29    265 

X.  30 264 

X.  31-39 160 

X.  32 233 

X.  34 261 

X.36 263 

X.  39 156 

X.  40  154,  155,301 

X.  40-42 153,  160 

xi.  1-7  155 

xi.  1-46 153,161 

xi.  4  263 

xi.  6  161 


Page 

xi.  34 243,258 

xi.  41  f 161,265 

xi.  47-50  193 

xi.  47-64 153,  161 

xi.  54 155,162,300 

xi.  55  to  xii.  11  166 

xi.  55toxix.  42  104 

xii.  1  46,162,163,301 

xii.  Itoxxi.  25 39 

xii.  2 169 

xii.  4-8 301 

xii.  6 178 

xii.  7 169 

xii.  12f 170 

xii.  12-19 166 

xii.  20-36» 166,176,302 

xii.  23-36  168 

xii.36b(-50)  166 

xii.  37-43 32 

xiii.  1 181,303 

xiii.  1-15 234,304 

xiii.  1-30  167 

xiii.  21-30 184 

xiii.  23-26 185 

xiii.  29 178,303 

xiu.  31  to  xvi.  33  32, 167,  305 

xiii.  32  f 305 

xiii.  36  38 305 

xiv.  6-11  264 

xiv.  10 161,  265 

xiv.  28 265 

xiv.  30f 32 

XV 32,167,305 

XV.  1 262 

xvi    32,167,305 

xvi.  25 264 

xvii.  1-26., 167 

xvii.  21 264 

xviii.  1  167 

xviii.  1-12 167 

xviii.  8 190 

xviii.  11" 189 

xviii.  12-27  167 

xviii.  15    193 

xviii.  28 182,303 

xviii.  28  to  xix.  16* 167 

xviii.  31  192 

xviii.  33,  36f 254 

xix.  7-12  192 

xix.  12-16 193 

xix.  14 303 

xix.  16-37 167 

xix.  19-22  198 

xix.  25 97 

xix.  26  97 

xix.  26  f 197,306 

xix.  28  197,306 

xix.  30 197,306 

xix.  31  182,  199,  303 

xix.  31-37 198 

xix.  38 34 

xix.  38-42  167 

xix.  39 Ill 

xix.  42  303 

XX.  1-10 201 

XX.  2 206 


Page 

XX.  5-8 43 

XX.  8 203 

XX.  9 200 

XX.  9f.,24f 93,94 

XX.  11-18 201 

XX.  17  209,214 

XX.  19-25  201 

XX.  21 23 

XX.  26-29 201 

XX.  30 49 

XX.  30f 32,107 

xxi 206 

xxi.  2  92 

xxi.  1-24 201 

xxi.  3-14 293 

xxi.  25 39 

Acts. 

i.  1-11  214 

i.  1-12  201 

i.  14  97 

ii.  36 202 

V.  36 89 

V.  37  53 

vii.  56   264 

xvii.  31 202 

xix.  1-7 80 

XX.  35   36 

xxi.  38 89 

xxiii.  8 302 

Rom. 

i.  3 21 

i.  4 202 

v.  19 21 

ix.  5 21 

XV.  3 21 

I.  Cor. 

i.  23 190 

V.  7  183 

ix.  1  202 

X.  16 304 

XV 202 

XV.  3-8 21,105,204 

XV.  4 204,213 

XV.  5 201 

XV.  6 201 

XV.  6f 162 

XV.  7 201 

II.  COR. 

V.  21  83 

viii.  9  21 

X.  1  21 

xii 212 

Gal. 
iii.  13 190 


320 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTUKE   REFERENCES 


Phii,. 

ii.  5-11  21,269 

ii.7f 190,285 

ii.  8 196 

II.  Tim. 
iii.  15 63 


Page 
Heb, 

ii.  17 61 

ii.  17  f 64 

ii.  18  87 

iv.  15  61,63,  67 

V.  7  147 

V.  7-9  87 


Page 

vii.  26 57 

xii.  2 190 

xiii.  13 190 

I.  Pet. 

ii.22 83 


DATE  DUE 


£1 


jUPHy^ 


DEMCO  38-297 


J;'",' " 

ili 

BS2420 .R469 

The  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  :  a  study 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00033  5556 


■^:;f'ilil 


':t;v.;,. 


''M:\'..''\:.\. 


r\ 


.■''l(:„;::,  ,"'^^:; 


WBM- 

,  r:'''':«/; 

:|'|i^:ii 

:''ii 

Am 

ill 

III 

lil 

'i/i'i;|i 

::;,iliir^^ 


